• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    California doesn’t have to listen to Montana.

    They have to listen to federal law and each person in Montana has way more federal representation thru the electoral college for president, Senate because every state gets two, and House because the number of seats are frozen.

    Both chambers and the Oval they have more representation.

    How is that not the minority telling the majority what to do?

    Like, this has to be working even a little right?

    There’s no shred of doubt in there?

    Because buddy, I got doubts on how much I’m gonna be able to help you understand, I can’t make this any simpler. So hopefully you needed just that one comment.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      The urban states greatly outnumber the rural states in the house, and California has fewer than the optimal persons per congressional district, meaning they are slightly overrepresented. The fact that 52 > 1 tells me that Montanans are not dictating policy to California.

      I understand what you’re trying to say, but the fact is that even if Montana were able to build a coalition of the 26 smallest states, they would not be able to enact law without support from several of the larger states. Especially if California opposed the measure.