I was reading this:
I've never realized until now that a California state senator represents a larger constituency than a Californian serving in the United States House of Representatives.
Somewhat impressive.
Same with Texas.
I'd argue that both states should expand their state senate's to correct that, but interesting regardless.
And I was thinking....does there need to be more seats in the state legislatures? In the CA State Assembly there are 80 members, so each member represents at least
465,000 people. Why not at least double it to 160? New York has 150 members. Texas also has 150 members, and each district represents about 150,000 people. New Hampshire is probably the most democratic, in that it has 400 members representing about 3,300 people. I understand that CA is more populous, but it's just
the democratic ratio that I have an issue with. Why not have the CA assembly at 320 members?
I remember from Reynolds v. Sims
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims that the districts have to be fairly equal in population, but what if they were equal but fewer? What if the state of CA reduced their Senate to 10 members and their Assembly to 20? Is this a problem?
Or is the main reason that the actual legislative chambers don't have enough room?