How can California gain political influence on a federal level

[Spine Crawler]

So definately not among the stories of this election is that California is basically a sucker state.

California has about 40 million people. It is a state that has high tax payers, some of the most precious tech companies. Actual californias contribution to the federal budget is a whopping $234.5B.

Yet the electorial college means that californians only have a quarter of influence compared to someone from Wyoming. (Wyoming has three electoral votes and a population of 586,107, while California has 55 electoral votes and 39,144,818 residents.)

It gets more ridiculous if you think about the senate. Wyoming has the same amount of senators as California so basically 20 million people per senator for California and 300k per senator for Wyoming. Wyoming people have 400 times more influence on the senate!

This is the reason why Gore or Clinton lost despite winning the popular vote and why some senators from red states can dictate policy.

Why is california accepting this and how can this be fixed?

 

[Dest]

Get rid of the electoral college.

 

[bluexy]

TBH, y'all need to primary out a lot of incumbents and replace them with passionate politicians who will fight at a state and federal level for more meaningful changes. Way too complacent of a constituency. California is one of the safest and most left bastions in the USA right now, but so many CA representatives may as well have come from conservative states. Should start by voting in a genuine progressive to replace Harris.

 

[Tomohawk]

I think I read somewhere party leadership is from NY and Cali because they raise the most money. So if you vote in more progressive people there they are likely to end up in leadership positions.

 

[Shodan14]

Stop giving the federal government so much power?

 

[Spine Crawler]

I think I read somewhere party leadership is from NY and Cali because they raise the most money. So if you vote in more progressive people there they are likely to end up in leadership positions.

Click to shrink...

But that doesnt change the problem that the influence of a californian is disproportionately small in comparison to other states. Even if you have the minority leader be a californian that doesnt change that the senate is republican with fewer people actually voting for those seats.

Stop giving the federal government so much power?

Click to shrink...

This seems like a hard thing to do as the federal governments usually are successful in expanding their powers. Especially now with the trend that the president rules with Executive Orders (which is another issue in itself).

 

[miscellaneous houseplant]

Repeal the House Apportionment Act of 1929, expand the House of Representatives so that each member represents the same number of people. Boom, California is suddenly way more important at the Federal level.

Requires winning the Senate first though. And the political will to do so.

 

[PanickyFool]

California has about 40 million people. It is a state that has high tax payers, some of the most precious tech companies. Actual californias contribution to the federal budget is a whopping $234.5B.

Click to shrink...

I get so incredibly annoyed when we become anti-progressive taxation and redistribution using states are the denomination. It is hypocritical on both a belief in a strong federal government as well as progressive taxation policy.

Repeal the House Apportionment Act of 1929, expand the House of Representatives so that each member represents the same number of people. Boom, California is suddenly way more important at the Federal level.

Requires winning the Senate first though. And the political will to do so.

Click to shrink...

This would also be a massive improvement on general representative democracy. Makes each individual representative less important while able to focus more on constituent needs. Would also diminish the power of the parties and enable a real national third party -also the reason why neither democrats nor republicans support it.

But it is the easiest way within the existing framework of the constitution.

 

[DanteMenethil]

I was under the impression that the number of electoral votes per state was determined by population size already, why is cali's electoral vote count not proportional to wyoming?

 

[butzopower]

It's even worse when you consider a lot of the small states with more representation per person are often being bailed out by the taxes coming from the likes of California fed taxes.

 

[Pluto]

Why is california accepting this and how can this be fixed?

Click to shrink...

Abolish the electoral college, abolish the senate, enlarge the house, get rid of midterm elections (electing the house every two years is ridiculous, the terms are too short), make the presidemt head of state but not head of government, get rid of the FPTP system and allow for proportional representation which would also allow smaller parties to get in.

I was under the impression that the number of electoral votes per state was determined by population size already, why is cali's electoral vote count not proportional to wyoming?

Click to shrink...

The number of electoral votes is equal to the number of senators and representatives a state has. Each state gets a minimum of 1 representative but because the house is capped at 438 members it's impossible to give the larger states proportional representation, there simply aren't enough slots which which the small states too much power in the house and the EC.

 

[miscellaneous houseplant]

I was under the impression that the number of electoral votes per state was determined by population size already, why is cali's electoral vote count not proportional to wyoming?

Click to shrink...

Because we capped the number of representatives in the US House in 1929 at 431. Each state gets at least one representative, regardless of population. So very low population states have a representative representing a small population, while the representatives of large population states, like California, represent much larger populations.

In addition, each state gets two Senators, regardless of population. Each states electoral votes are determined by the number of Senators and Representatives. So, that's how you get an electoral amount disproportionately favoring small population states.

 

[PanickyFool]

It's even worse when you consider a lot of the small states with more representation per person are often being bailed out by the taxes coming from the likes of California fed taxes.

Click to shrink...

That is called progressive tax policy. The fed does not tax states only individuals.

Higher earners pay more in federal taxes.
Lower earners pay less in taxes and often benefit from welfare programs.

 

[DanteMenethil]

Because we capped the number of representatives in the US House in 1929 at 431. Each state gets at least one representative, regardless of population. So very low population states have a representative representing a small population, while the representatives of large population states, like California, represent much larger populations.

In addition, each state gets two Senators, regardless of population. Each states electoral votes are determined by the number of Senators and Representatives. So, that's how you get an electoral amount disproportionately favoring small population states.

Click to shrink...

Seems dumb to not have proportional power but at the same time if voting power was purely proportional wouldn't cali pretty much decide the fate of the whole country? Doesn't seem right either

 

[Spine Crawler]

That is called progressive tax policy. The fed does not tax states only individuals.

Higher earners pay more in federal taxes.
Lower earners pay less in taxes and often benefit from welfare programs.

Click to shrink...

thats true but when there are so many people in california and they are getting so little representation you have to make the money argument.

Seems dumb to not have proportional power but at the same time if voting power was purely proportional wouldn't cali pretty much decide the fate of the whole country? Doesn't seem right either

Click to shrink...

why its 1/6 of the entire population. its not like california would decide everything but at least they would have more power than a state with 500k people living.

 

[butzopower]

That is called progressive tax policy. The fed does not tax states only individuals.

Higher earners pay more in federal taxes.
Lower earners pay less in taxes and often benefit from welfare programs.

Click to shrink...

Ya fair enough, bad opinion on my part, I'm being hypocritical like your other post mentioned. It's easy to feel bitter in the abstract but poor people everywhere don't deserve getting screwed out of help.

 

[Spine Crawler]

Abolish the electoral college, abolish the senate, enlarge the house, get rid of midterm elections (electing the house every two years is ridiculous, the terms are too short), make the presidemt head of state but not head of government, get rid of the FPTP system and allow for proportional representation which would also allow smaller parties to get in.


The number of electoral votes is equal to the number of senators and representatives a state has. Each state gets a minimum of 1 representative but because the house is capped at 438 members it's impossible to give the larger states proportional representation, there simply aren't enough slots which which the small states too much power in the house and the EC.

Click to shrink...

but thats impossible without constitutional amendment which in itself would require a lot of states agree to it and i dont think many states would because they are benefitting from it.

 

[DanteMenethil]

thats true but when there are so many people in california and they are getting so little representation you have to make the money argument.

why its 1/6 of the entire population. its not like california would decide everything but at least they would have more power than a state with 500k people living.

Click to shrink...

they are 1/6 when you only need 3/6 of the pop to vote for you. You get cali and it's borderline impossible to lose. Cali would essentially be the deciding factor for the policies of the whole country while at the end of the day they are a state of the west coast with their own setbacks and challenges that are not necessarily representative of the challenges other states has. At that point make it a sovereign nation lol

 

[Tomohawk]

But that doesnt change the problem that the influence of a californian is disproportionately small in comparison to other states. Even if you have the minority leader be a californian that doesnt change that the senate is republican with fewer people actually voting for those seats.

This seems like a hard thing to do as the federal governments usually are successful in expanding their powers. Especially now with the trend that the president rules with Executive Orders (which is another issue in itself).

Click to shrink...

From what I understand a lot of who gets backed for senate seats are determined by Schumer, I could be wrong though so having control over that process by a progressive would help a lot.

 

[MechaMarmaset]

Seems dumb to not have proportional power but at the same time if voting power was purely proportional wouldn't cali pretty much decide the fate of the whole country? Doesn't seem right either

Click to shrink...

Bush won a majority of the popular vote in 2004. So not necessarily.

At this point, why do all these empty states get to have to undue influence over the majority of the country?

 

[DanteMenethil]

At this point, why do all these empty states get to have to undue influence over the majority of the country?

Click to shrink...

Because in a system where winner takes all (270 gets you the presidency as well as 540 or 400) the majority have all the power and minorities have zero power. This at least helps a bit.

 

[jakomocha]

Repeal the House Apportionment Act.

Every other type of reform that would give us more influence requires for the Democratics to have a much larger majority, like repealing the electoral college

 

[Sensei]

i dont want californians to have more power, they are shit

 

[Toxi]

I was under the impression that the number of electoral votes per state was determined by population size already, why is cali's electoral vote count not proportional to wyoming?

Click to shrink...

Because the size of the House of Representatives has not increased in size since 1929.

Because in a system where winner takes all (270 gets you the presidency as well as 540 or 400) the majority have all the power and minorities have zero power. This at least helps a bit.

Click to shrink...

We literally have a whole house of congress dedicated to giving each state national representation regardless of population size. To have the entire executive branch and judicial branch based on a system that doesn't give the majority power means the system is completely undemocratic.

Seriously, you can't argue tyranny of the majority as long as the Senate exists.

 

[Spine Crawler]

they are 1/6 when you only need 3/6 of the pop to vote for you. You get cali and it's borderline impossible to lose. Cali would essentially be the deciding factor for the policies of the whole country while at the end of the day they are a state of the west coast with their own setbacks and challenges that are not necessarily representative of the challenges other states has. At that point make it a sovereign nation lol

Click to shrink...

indeed. and the second biggest state is texas with 30 million third and fourth is florida and new york with 20 million each. probably those will dictate the american politics among themselves but i fail to see how that is a problem because in the end the states are representing the people living in there.

 

[Spine Crawler]

i dont want californians to have more power, they are shit

Click to shrink...

so you keep senate to be dictated by the coalition of wyoming, south dakota, north dakota, alaska, idaho etc.?

 

[Thisisme]

A real cutthroat maneuver would be to repeal their anti-gerrymandering legislation and cut out all their Republicans in the legislature. Supreme Court already said it's okay.

 

[Mivey]

1. Secede from the Union
2. Wait until the rest of the US breaks down economically
3. Swiftly lead an invasion through the continent, taking over Washington DC
4. Establish the Greater Californian Republic
5. ????
6. Profit

 

[Spine Crawler]

1. Secede from the Union
2. Wait until the rest of the US breaks down economically
3. Swiftly lead an invasion through the continent, taking over Washington DC
4. Establish the Greater Californian Republic
5. ????
6. Profit

Click to shrink...

Calexit was on the table. Is that actually possible?

 

[iksenpets]

The electoral college and the Senate make this really difficult, and amending the constitution to get rid of those is even harder. Your options to reduce the poor proportional representation are basically to try to figure out how many safely Democratic states you could divide California into without creating one that may go Republican, or figure out how to encourage Californians to go colonize Wyoming and the Dakotas.

 

[Deleted member 6230]

After passing prop 22? I wouldn't want Californians to have more influence

 

[MechaMarmaset]

Because in a system where winner takes all (270 gets you the presidency as well as 540 or 400) the majority have all the power and minorities have zero power. This at least helps a bit.

Click to shrink...

And they got their compromise with the senate. The problem is that they also get disproportionate influence over the house and presidency, and then that voting minority uses that leverage to fuck over other categories of minorities (race, sexuality, gender identity). We've flipped that old adage and now we've got 1 wolf and two sheep deciding on what to eat, but you gave the wolf 3 votes.

 

[Fantasma]

With things like Prop22 passing without a hitch? I'd rather them not.

^^^ infinite Beaten

They should focus on taking their state back from lobbyists.

 

[Dr. Feel Good]

Deregulate building provisions and eliminate zoning to increase housing supply to lower costs across the state to encourage more people to immigrate into California. This will have a positive influence on homelessness and wealth inequality in the state. As shitty as it is, encourage tax subsidies for growing and emerging industries to help fuel job and GDP growth to create jobs for migration in, right now the state is losing businesses and industries at rapid rates.

The more and more we can get people to flow into California the better and utilize their resources and tax revenue to eliminate the massive problems (largely infrastructure, public schooling, homelessness, and cost of housing) the better. Truly make California a liberal utopia so you can say "well we don't have any fucking problems, why are all of your states such a mess?"

 

[Kill3r7]

They already do.

 

[Sensei]

so you keep senate to be dictated by the coalition of wyoming, south dakota, north dakota, alaska, idaho etc.?

Click to shrink...

dont get me wrong, i dont want that either.

im just hoping theres a better way than growing the influence of the place with such rampant nimbyism. thats my wishful thinking getting in the way

 

[Deleted member 46429]

they can continue their ever climbing housing prices causing more of us to move 😏
(my exodus was to texas, thanks for asking).

but seriously, the restrictions against CA exist at a constitutional level and won't be reverted in our lifetime, if at all. The house re-apportions act is a legitimate way to give us more house representation.

And I doubt you could really split the state into three blue areas. If the state's blue, it's because of the metro areas, and even LA or orange county isn't super reliably blue iirc. I lived in the Bay Area, so I might be wrong about SoCal, but it really does feel like the crazy GOP house members come from there lol.

 

[mrmoose]

Continue migrating to Texas and other places and changing the complexion there?

 

[Deleted member 23212]

so you keep senate to be dictated by the coalition of wyoming, south dakota, north dakota, alaska, idaho etc.?

Click to shrink...

It's in the Constitution that you can't change that part of the constitution.

 

[Deleted member 5876]

There's no reason California couldn't have many more progressive candidates like AOC (who represents NY district). Californians have let their representatives be lazy and haven't demanded more from them.

 

[Spine Crawler]

they can continue their ever climbing housing prices causing more of us to move 😏
(my exodus was to texas, thanks for asking).

but seriously, the restrictions against CA exist at a constitutional level and won't be reverted in our lifetime, if at all. The house re-apportions act is a legitimate way to give us more house representation.

And I doubt you could really split the state into three blue areas. If the state's blue, it's because of the metro areas, and even LA or orange county isn't super reliably blue iirc. I lived in the Bay Area, so I might be wrong about SoCal, but it really does feel like the crazy GOP house members come from there lol.

Click to shrink...

exodus seems to be real. Texas is now only a +6 republican state. It was a +9 state 4 years ago and a +16 8 years ago. The trend is clear next election it might flip. Georgia seems to be a similar story.

There's no reason California couldn't have many more progressive candidates like AOC (who represents NY district). Californians have let their representatives be lazy and haven't demanded more from them.

Click to shrink...

So is there a certain disdain between the public and its representatives? I mean the californians seem pretty progressive.

 

[Deleted member 46429]

exodus seems to be real. Texas is now only a +6 republican state. It was a +9 state 4 years ago and a +16 8 years ago. The trend is clear next election it might flip. Georgia seems to be a similar story.

Click to shrink...

to be fair, I don't know how representative my situation is. My partner lived out here in Texas, and it was inevitable I'd move there or he'd move here; the bay area's awful housing situation basically forced my hand.

Point is, it's possible many of those moving from California aren't necessarily blue-leaning in the slightest.

 

[Toxi]

Apparently asking for more proportional representation is off the table as soon as the people vote for policies you don't agree with.

 

[Hoot]

EDIT: nevermind i'm too tired and post just came off as too toxic

 

[Sensei]

Apparently asking for more proportional representation is off the table as soon as the people vote for policies you don't agree with.

Click to shrink...

ok ill change my mind 🥺

 

[Deleted member 6230]

Apparently asking for more proportional representation is off the table as soon as the people vote for policies you don't agree with.

Click to shrink...

This thread isn't about that tho so relax with accusatory tone. Also prop 22 is fucking evil it's not simply something "I don't agree with"

 

[davepoobond]

This thread isn't about that tho so relax with accusatory tone. Also prop 22 is fucking evil it's not simply something "I don't agree with"

Click to shrink...

the evil bill in CA was stricter sentences for low level crimes...



CA might gain more influence, but the republicans in the state would as well. Right now they basically have diminished influence.

 

[Deleted member 6230]

the evil bill in CA was stricter sentences for low level crimes...

Click to shrink...

Pretty fucking evil as well!

 

[Toxi]

So is there a certain disdain between the public and its representatives? I mean the californians seem pretty progressive.

Click to shrink...

California is a fucking gigantic state that has a wide variety of demographics. Overall it's very into the whole "liberal capitalist" thing, like the rest of the west coast.

 

[Spine Crawler]

California is a fucking gigantic state that has a wide variety of demographics. Overall it's very into the whole "liberal capitalist" thing, like the rest of the west coast.

Click to shrink...

but which state in the US is not in the liberal capitalist thing? maybe the rustbelt?