Smaller States Find Outsize Clout Growing in Senate

[Sopranos Republican]

Yes I feel the power coursing through my veins! Other than the fact that Rutland got 4 times the money that the New York county did, I really don't feel bad that we have 2 senators just like New York. That's the way it's designed in the constitution, New York has 27 representatives, we have 1, that's also the way the constitution designed it.

[Sopranos Republican]

Yes I feel the power coursing through my veins! Other than the fact that Rutland got 4 times the money that the New York county did, I really don't feel bad that we have 2 senators just like New York. That's the way it's designed in the constitution, New York has 27 representatives, we have 1, that's also the way the constitution designed it.

Again, this says nothing about the moral validity and/or social utility of this system.

"That's the way we always did" is not an argument.

The small states like Vermont would get screwed over if it was just the house of representatives. I mean give me a break, Peter Welsh would be our only voice in that system. One house that is delegated according to population, and one house where every state has the same say in matters.

Man, I just feel the power just pumping through my veins right now, with these 2 amazing senators I have!

You have better ones than Matt, at least

Bandit has arguably the worst Senate delegation; Matt has arguably the best.

I actually like Patrick Leahy, he is a supporter of gay rights, environmental protection, and better education, also a very likeable guy, have you noticed him in the last two batman movies? Bernie Sanders (sorry I'm not a socialist), but at least he supports those same issues I support.

[Sopranos Republican]

Yes I feel the power coursing through my veins! Other than the fact that Rutland got 4 times the money that the New York county did, I really don't feel bad that we have 2 senators just like New York. That's the way it's designed in the constitution, New York has 27 representatives, we have 1, that's also the way the constitution designed it.

Again, this says nothing about the moral validity and/or social utility of this system.

"That's the way we always did" is not an argument.

The small states like Vermont would get screwed over if it was just the house of representatives. I mean give me a break, Peter Welsh would be our only voice in that system. One house that is delegated according to population, and one house where every state has the same say in matters.

Man, I just feel the power just pumping through my veins right now, with these 2 amazing senators I have!

You have better ones than Matt, at least

Bandit has arguably the worst Senate delegation; Matt has arguably the best.

I actually like Patrick Leahy, he is a supporter of gay rights, environmental protection, and better education, also a very likeable guy, have you noticed him in the last two batman movies? Bernie Sanders (sorry I'm not a socialist), but at least he supports those same issues I support.

Why should every state have the same voice, if one state has 20 times the population than another?

We'd get passed by on everything. We already do in some cases, Northern New England is the only region in the U.S. without a high priority corridor designation. We don't have any major east-west interstates, because we aren't guaranteed federal funding for the interstate. The region once passed a resolution for one, and it was struck down by the federal transportation department. Just because we don't have as many people doesn't mean we aren't as important.

[Sopranos Republican]

However, we need to expand the size of the House.   We've been at 435 for one hundred years now.    A single Representative stood for 215,000 people then; 725,000 now.  We need to expand to 1000 members in the House.

The more districts, the more difficult gerrymandering and lobbying becomes.  

Amen to this.

I could support this.

Yes I feel the power coursing through my veins! Other than the fact that Rutland got 4 times the money that the New York county did, I really don't feel bad that we have 2 senators just like New York. That's the way it's designed in the constitution, New York has 27 representatives, we have 1, that's also the way the constitution designed it.

Again, this says nothing about the moral validity and/or social utility of this system.

"That's the way we always did" is not an argument.

The small states like Vermont would get screwed over if it was just the house of representatives. I mean give me a break, Peter Welsh would be our only voice in that system. One house that is delegated according to population, and one house where every state has the same say in matters.

Man, I just feel the power just pumping through my veins right now, with these 2 amazing senators I have!

You have better ones than Matt, at least

Bandit has arguably the worst Senate delegation; Matt has arguably the best.

I actually like Patrick Leahy, he is a supporter of gay rights, environmental protection, and better education, also a very likeable guy, have you noticed him in the last two batman movies? Bernie Sanders (sorry I'm not a socialist), but at least he supports those same issues I support.

Why should every state have the same voice, if one state has 20 times the population than another?

We'd get passed by on everything. We already do in some cases, Northern New England is the only region in the U.S. without a high priority corridor designation. We don't have any major east-west interstates, because we aren't guaranteed federal funding for the interstate. The region once passed a resolution for one, and it was struck down by the federal transportation department. Just because we don't have as many people doesn't mean we aren't as important.

Yeah, but on the other hand California doesn't get the funding it needs to properly serve its population's transportation needs. The Los Angeles area should get much more support in the building of freeways and local rail. Interstate 5 should be made 6 laned between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Does Vermont even have enough vehicular traffic to justify a east-west interstate? Interstate 5 on the other hand is chock full of cars and trucks every Friday and Sunday. Not to mention the feds don't even provide any support to service the people of Fresno, Bakersfield, Visalia, Merced and Modesto, who all put together make up a population in excess of 2 million. I think people in smaller states get much more support in their transportation needs than those in cities and big states do.

It wouldn't just be for Vermont. Most of the proposals ran from the Maine-New Brunswick border through New Hampshire and Vermont and into New York. There were actually three interstates being talked about, one from Albany, NY through Southern Vermont and So. New Hampshire to Portland, Maine. One from Lake George, NY through central VT and NH to I think Augusta. And the one I mentioned through far Upstate New York through Northern Vermont and New Hampshire all the way to the Maine-New Brunswick border. It would help us have a route to get to the Midwest far more quickly, and to some Canadian cities for trade.