• freddydunningkruger@lemmy.world
    569·
    2 days ago

    Except CA isn’t fairly represented in the House either. CA would need 68 representatives just to have the same representation as Wyoming.

    And say, shouldn’t the states that have a huge economy and bring in more tax dollars have more of a say than the red welfare states that suck up those tax dollars? Just sayin…

    • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
      321·
      2 days ago

      I disagree with the economy part. Fuck that. Your value isn’t described by how much wealth you generate.

      Republicans are (or were) hypocritical with their talk of fiscal responsibility while representing states that take in more money than they give back. This should be pointed out if they ever return to that argument. This isn’t to say poor people from republican states (or anywhere else) are less valuable though. It’s only hypocrisy that’s wrong, not trying to help lower income people that’s wrong.

    • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      293·
      2 days ago

      And say, shouldn’t the states that have a huge economy and bring in more tax dollars have more of a say than the red welfare states that suck up those tax dollars?

      By that logic, a rich person should have more say in government?

    • uis@lemm.ee
      191·
      2 days ago

      shouldn’t the states that have a huge economy and bring in more tax dollars have more of a say

      Wtf, dude? Can you make something even more american-sounding?

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      32·
      2 days ago

      CA would need 68 representatives just to have the same representation as Wyoming.

      Every state is guaranteed one representative, and then otherwise by population. Wyoming has one representative.