State Population Minimums

kernals12

Banned
The US constitution doesn't set any limits on how small a state can be. This results in a wide disparity of state population and opens the door for gerrymandering state borders for political advantage. So what if the constitution stipulated that new states had to have a population equal to at least 1% of the national population? As it is right now, a new state would have to have at least 3.25 million people, that would allow Puerto Rico in, but not DC. Also, 20 states fail this test currently. The result would be a lot of states would take much longer to gain statehood or would be forced to combine with other states. Nevada could be part of California. Alaska and Hawaii would still be territories. The Senate would be far more equal in terms of representation, which I consider an unqualified positive.
 
Last edited:
I can't imagine such a constitutional amendment passing. Forcibly merging existing states, for instance, would be a distinct no-no.

Saying that any new state had to have at least the population of the smallest current state would be possible, surely. Requiring a new state to be at least as large as the current average congressional district would be interesting, but somewhat less plausible.
 

Marc

Donor
The US constitution doesn't set any limits on how small a state can be. This results in a wide disparity of state population and opens the door for gerrymandering state borders for political advantage. So what if the constitution stipulated that new states had to have a population equal to at least 1% of the national population? As it is right now, a new state would have to have at least 3.25 million people, that would allow Puerto Rico in, but not DC. Also, 20 states fail this test currently. The result would be a lot of states would take much longer to gain statehood or would be forced to combine with other states. Virginia would still include Kentucky and West Virginia. Nevada would part of California. The Senate would be far more equal in terms of representation, which I consider an unqualified positive.

I've actually played with the concept of how to avoid what I call the "rotten borough" risk of having states with fixed geographies. I came up with a constitutional requirement that each state admitted shall have a population no less than 10% of the largest state, accepting the 3/5 compromise. (And then ignoring that post-Civil War.) The official US census being the guideline. That would have worked easily starting with the 1790 census: Virginia, the largest state, having an adjusted population of approx 630,000; Rhode Island with 55,540.
It would have huge consequences on the how big geographically, and when, numerous states would be admitted. Some examples: Florida doesn't become a state until 1860; Wyoming never becomes a state (good chance the territory ends as part of either Montana or Colorado); the only way the Dakota's join are as one state, and so on.

It does avoid the huge, and growing, disparity in representation approaching 70:1 in voters between Wyoming and California for senator. I fully understand, and sympathetic to the the small state argument, however at some point it does become a bit odious...
 
Last edited:

kernals12

Banned
I can't imagine such a constitutional amendment passing. Forcibly merging existing states, for instance, would be a distinct no-no.

Saying that any new state had to have at least the population of the smallest current state would be possible, surely. Requiring a new state to be at least as large as the current average congressional district would be interesting, but somewhat less plausible.
Actually, all of the 13 colonies would've passed the test. The 1790 census said we had 3,893,635 people, the minimum population for statehood would've been 38,936. The smallest state, Delaware had 59,000.
 

kernals12

Banned
I've actually played with the concept of how to avoid what I call the "rotten borough" risk of having states with fixed geographies. I came up with constitutional requirement that each state admitted shall have a population no less than 10% of the largest state, accepting the 3/5 compromise. (And then ignoring that post-Civil War.) The official US census being the guideline. That would have worked easily starting with the 1790 census: Virginia, the largest state, having an adjusted population of approx 630,000; Rhode Island with 55,540.
It would have huge consequences on the how big geographically, and when, numerous states would be admitted. Some examples: Florida doesn't become a state until 1860; Wyoming never becomes a state (good chance the territory ends as part of either Montana or Colorado); the only way the Dakota's join are as one state, and so on.

It does avoid the huge, and growing, disparity in representation approaching 70:1 in voters between Wyoming and California for senator. I fully understand, and sympathetic to the the small state argument, however at some point it does become a bit odious...
I'm not. As Chief Justice Earl Warren said in Reynolds V Sims in 1965 which required state senate districts be equal in population "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not by farms or cities or economic concerns".
 
Last edited:
I'm not. As Chief Justice Warren Burger said in Reynolds V Sims in 1965 which required state senate districts be equal in population "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not by farms or cities or economic concerns".

The Senate is supposed to represent the separate states in the federation, equally. The fact that we bastardized the system with direct election of senators is irrelevant. The whole Constitutional system is a check on the tyranny of a simple majority, which is what pure democracy becomes. Otherwise, 50.000000001% could vote to enslave or execute the 49.9999999999999%, and it's all good, which is obviously absurd.
 

kernals12

Banned
The Senate is supposed to represent the separate states in the federation, equally. The fact that we bastardized the system with direct election of senators is irrelevant. The whole Constitutional system is a check on the tyranny of a simple majority, which is what pure democracy becomes. Otherwise, 50.000000001% could vote to enslave or execute the 49.9999999999999%, and it's all good, which is obviously absurd.
A. Pure democracy would be voters directly choosing laws. If we had a unicameral congress, we'd still have elected representatives making our laws
B. Our constitution, which requires a supermajority in congress and 3/4 of all states to change protects peoples' rights from being trampled on (most of the time).
C. You're implicitly saying that people who live in small states are a minority group that needs special protection. I can think of lots of other minority groups that need special protection. Why don't we have a senate that requires equal representation for blacks, latinos, asians, or members of the LGBT community?

Bonus: When has the senate actually helped protect a minority in this country? For 90 years, it was where anti-lynching and civil rights bills went to die. It was from where Joe McCarthy launched his witch hunt. And it didn't protect us from Japanese internment or the Palmer Raids.
 
Last edited:
Rotten boroughs via states were done in the USA. The cases were West Virginia, Nevada, North and South Dakota, and possibly Wyoming. All these states were created for purely partisan advantage. And with West Virginia, its really a case that it is constitutional, pretty much everything the federal executive at the time wants is constitutional.

Really this is a case of USA as world dominating empire vs USA as simple federation of states on the northeastern parts of the North American continent and there is no good way to resolve this.
 

kernals12

Banned
Here are the mega-states I think we would see out West
Dakota: North Dakota- South Dakota-Montana-Wyoming
Cascadia: Washington-Oregon-Idaho
Colorado: Nevada-Colorado-New Mexico-Arizona-Utah.

Dakota, being heavily white and rural, would be very Republican
Cascadia, thanks to Portland and Seattle having way more people than Idaho, would be strongly Democratic
Colorado would have gone from Republican stronghold to competitive since 2008
 
Last edited:
The US constitution doesn't set any limits on how small a state can be. This results in a wide disparity of state population and opens the door for gerrymandering state borders for political advantage. So what if the constitution stipulated that new states had to have a population equal to at least 1% of the national population? As it is right now, a new state would have to have at least 3.25 million people, that would allow Puerto Rico in, but not DC. Also, 20 states fail this test currently. The result would be a lot of states would take much longer to gain statehood or would be forced to combine with other states. Virginia would still include West Virginia. Nevada could be would part of California. Alaska and Hawaii would still be territories. The Senate would be far more equal in terms of representation, which I consider an unqualified positive.
I am fond of the idea of megastates in the interior of the far west.

I think there should be a minimum population and a minimum area, or a minimum density. The idea being that there has to be a certain level of development, and knowing how people settle, this will mean that some small cities will develop too. I think this would be advantageous for delaying entry of Alabama, Mississippi, and the initial Louisiana Territory states.

This will also somewhat help river watershed based states west of the 100th Meridian (where rainfall drops off significantly and hydrologic planning becomes very important to agriculture). The problem with this is that upper part of a watershed might not initially be easily accessible from the lower part, yet is more easily accessible from a different watershed. So you will have to be willing to accept lawlessness, and a much slower development by basing borders on watersheds.

One other concept; some people did not want the "new" states brought in under the same conditions as the "original" states. This could open up all styles of governance and would be useful in those watershed states, or in more equitably dealing with Tribal Territories. I may be cynical to think so, but I believe "constitutionality" is really a popularity contest at the time it is being talked about, so I don't think this viewpoint is implausible. IIRC, there was also discussion in the Constitutional Convention about determining the standing of newly admitted states.

Maybe West Virginia could get split between Kentucky, Maryland, and Ohio.
I've heard it said that the English in eastern Virginia did not merely seek to horde political power, and withhold assistance to the Scottish settlers in western Virginia, but they actively sought to suppress and disrupt their growth. Perhaps some early PODs cause Virginia to cultivate the growth of Kentucky and Appalachia. Appalachia could potentially obtain Pittsburgh, or even up to Lake Erie.

It does avoid the huge, and growing, disparity in representation approaching 70:1 in voters between Wyoming and California for senator. I fully understand, and sympathetic to the the small state argument, however at some point it does become a bit odious...

I'm not. As Chief Justice Earl Warren said in Reynolds V Sims in 1965 which required state senate districts be equal in population "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not by farms or cities or economic concerns".

The Senate is supposed to represent the separate states in the federation, equally. The fact that we bastardized the system with direct election of senators is irrelevant. The whole Constitutional system is a check on the tyranny of a simple majority, which is what pure democracy becomes. Otherwise, 50.000000001% could vote to enslave or execute the 49.9999999999999%, and it's all good, which is obviously absurd.

C. You're implicitly saying that people who live in small states are a minority group that needs special protection.
The quote about trees is witty, but fails to convey the community identity which forms as a result of the troop based social structure of Humans; neither solitary creatures, nor hive creatures. And that you are unsympathetic to the small state argument is reason enough for a citizen of a small state to advocate for Senatorial equality. There are historical reasons why they exist, and why their independence from a broader identity is important.

I can think of lots of other minority groups that need special protection.
The people who advocated for independence, and then passed the Constitution were relatively homogenous, and I think the organization of their communities into culturally differentiated states based on the historical founding and peopling of the precedent colonies was their attempt to advocate for their respective status as a minority in that broader homogenous group.
 

Vuu

Banned
The US constitution doesn't set any limits on how small a state can be. This results in a wide disparity of state population and opens the door for gerrymandering state borders for political advantage. So what if the constitution stipulated that new states had to have a population equal to at least 1% of the national population? As it is right now, a new state would have to have at least 3.25 million people, that would allow Puerto Rico in, but not DC. Also, 20 states fail this test currently. The result would be a lot of states would take much longer to gain statehood or would be forced to combine with other states. Virginia would still include West Virginia. Nevada could be would part of California. Alaska and Hawaii would still be territories. The Senate would be far more equal in terms of representation, which I consider an unqualified positive.

At that point you might as well do away with states and shit and make them subservient completely. Would make some things much less complicated too
 

kernals12

Banned
I am fond of the idea of megastates in the interior of the far west.

I think there should be a minimum population and a minimum area, or a minimum density. The idea being that there has to be a certain level of development, and knowing how people settle, this will mean that some small cities will develop too. I think this would be advantageous for delaying entry of Alabama, Mississippi, and the initial Louisiana Territory states.

This will also somewhat help river watershed based states west of the 100th Meridian (where rainfall drops off significantly and hydrologic planning becomes very important to agriculture). The problem with this is that upper part of a watershed might not initially be easily accessible from the lower part, yet is more easily accessible from a different watershed. So you will have to be willing to accept lawlessness, and a much slower development by basing borders on watersheds.

One other concept; some people did not want the "new" states brought in under the same conditions as the "original" states. This could open up all styles of governance and would be useful in those watershed states, or in more equitably dealing with Tribal Territories. I may be cynical to think so, but I believe "constitutionality" is really a popularity contest at the time it is being talked about, so I don't think this viewpoint is implausible. IIRC, there was also discussion in the Constitutional Convention about determining the standing of newly admitted states.

I've heard it said that the English in eastern Virginia did not merely seek to horde political power, and withhold assistance to the Scottish settlers in western Virginia, but they actively sought to suppress and disrupt their growth. Perhaps some early PODs cause Virginia to cultivate the growth of Kentucky and Appalachia. Appalachia could potentially obtain Pittsburgh, or even up to Lake Erie.


The quote about trees is witty, but fails to convey the community identity which forms as a result of the troop based social structure of Humans; neither solitary creatures, nor hive creatures. And that you are unsympathetic to the small state argument is reason enough for a citizen of a small state to advocate for Senatorial equality. There are historical reasons why they exist, and why their independence from a broader identity is important.


The people who advocated for independence, and then passed the Constitution were relatively homogenous, and I think the organization of their communities into culturally differentiated states based on the historical founding and peopling of the precedent colonies was their attempt to advocate for their respective status as a minority in that broader homogenous group.
State borders were arbitrarily drawn centuries ago to match either lines of longitude and latitude or geographical features such as rivers. They do not match any sort of group identity.
 
A. Pure democracy would be voters directly choosing laws. If we had a unicameral congress, we'd still have elected representatives making our laws

If you base the Senate on population, there is no need for bicameralism

B. Our constitution, which requires a supermajority in congress and 3/4 of all states to change protects peoples' rights from being trampled on (most of the time).

The people writing the Constitution thought that, separate from the people, the states required representation in the federal legislature, too.

C. You're implicitly saying that people who live in small states are a minority group that needs special protection. I can think of lots of other minority groups that need special protection. Why don't we have a senate that requires equal representation for blacks, latinos, asians, or members of the LGBT community?laws

No, I'm explicitly stating that I agree with the founders that states should have separate representation in the federal legislature. If we hadn't jacked up the system with direct election of senators, we'd likely see fewer unfounded mandates imposed by the congress on the states. I believe that the law should be neutral and equal- no one should get special protection or special privileges.

Bonus: When has the senate actually helped protect a minority in this country? For 90 years, it was where anti-lynching and civil rights bills went to die. It was from where Joe McCarthy launched his witch hunt. And it didn't protect us from Japanese internment or the Palmer Raids.

So imperfect execution invalidates the form of the system? By the way, all of your examples except the first half of the 90 years come after the direct election of senators was instituted by the 17th Amendment in 1913.
 

kernals12

Banned
I'm going to show what the effects would've been by decade. Here are my assumptions:

If a state that was below the threshold IOTL when it was admitted ended up meeting the threshold with in the next 2 censuses, I'm going to assume congress would've been patient and waited. For instance, Illinois was too small when it was admitted in 1818, but by the 1830 census was sufficiently large and would've been let in.

If the state did not meet the threshold within the next two censuses, I assume that congress would graft it on to another state or territory to provide the people with representation. Florida for instance, did not meet the threshold in 1845 and was still below in 1860 and didn't cross over until 1930, so it gets joined with Georgia.

The one exception I'll make is Mississippi. It and Alabama were once a single territory and I don't think it makes sense to split them up even though Mississippi reached the threshold in 1830.

1790-1810: All states meet the threshold, no effect

1820: Illinois is below the threshold. Mississippi is below the threshold and the territory is admitted without Alabama being split off

1830: Illinois now meets the threshold.

1840: Arkansas does not meet the threshold.

1850: This is when the rule starts having real effects. California, Texas, Florida, and Iowa are below the threshold and have to stay out. Florida, being a humid, misquito infested swamp where few would want to live, is combined with Georgia.

1860: Texas, Arkansas, California, and Iowa now meet the threshold. Minnesota and Oregon are too small. I imagine that the territories of Texas and Arkansas see confederate coups and join the civil war just like IOTL. Both territories may be forced to wait until Grover Cleveland's presidency for statehood.

1870: The threshold does not prevent any confederate states from rejoining. Even West Virginia is large enough. Minnesota now meets the threshold. Nevada, Kansas, and Nebraska do not.

1880: Kansas and Nebraska now meet the threshold. Colorado does not.

1890: This is when the effect of the rule is at its highest. The Dakotas, Montana, and Wyoming do not meet the threshold. They are merged into one state. Washington and Idaho do not meet the threshold, they are merged with Oregon and become one state. Utah does not meet the threshold.

1900: Colorado still does not meet the threshold. It is merged with Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona.

1910-1960: No effects

1960: Hawaii and Alaska are too small and forced to remain territories.

Today: Only Puerto Rico meets the threshold and as its population shrinks, it probably will fall below.

So, the US has 37 states now. The list of smallest states is now dominated by the Northeast instead of the Rocky Mountain west, with Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Maine, in that order, being the smallest. Georgia, with Florida grafted on, now has 32 million people, making it larger than any state besides California.
 
Last edited:

kernals12

Banned
No, I'm explicitly stating that I agree with the founders that states should have separate representation in the federal legislature. If we hadn't jacked up the system with direct election of senators, we'd likely see fewer unfounded mandates imposed by the congress on the states. I believe that the law should be neutral and equal- no one should get special protection or special privileges.
What we would see is small states getting even more disproportionate amounts of federal money.
 
I'm not. As Chief Justice Earl Warren said in Reynolds V Sims in 1965 which required state senate districts be equal in population "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not by farms or cities or economic concerns".
Take your political opinions to Political Chat.
 
Exactly. You guys want to argue about whether the American system of representation is flawed or not, you guys should do it in Chat.
 
State borders were arbitrarily drawn centuries ago to match either lines of longitude and latitude or geographical features such as rivers. They do not match any sort of group identity.

Pretty sure Idaho has a clearly distinct identity from the coastal parts of Washington and Oregon, and you think it is a good idea to combine the three states? Making such huge states is an issue especially back in the day because of travel times to the state capital, issues in statewide campaigns (elections for governor, and later senator assuming the 17th amendment), and other communication problems.
 
Top