I looked through your comments to understand why you reacted like that, and I realized you’re either wildly politically illiterate or you can’t do math. When your supporting argument for Wyoming being underrepresented is “they have 1 congress person” instead of an argument about the number per population it’s kinda hard to tell which it is. The talk about the state being “big” makes me suspect it’s the former, however.
If the population of the state is P, let the number of Representatives ® be P/C, rounded up [R=ceil(P/C)].
Note how land area is not a part of the formula.
If Texas were the size of Detroit while maintaining the total population size, would you argue in favor of reducing their representatives to 1 or even 0?
If the answer is yes, you need to take a civics class. Your question is like asking how much wax you need to make a crayon be blue; the hue of the crayon is entirely independent of the total amount of wax. Hopefully that’s an analogy you understand.
Removed by mod
I looked through your comments to understand why you reacted like that, and I realized you’re either wildly politically illiterate or you can’t do math. When your supporting argument for Wyoming being underrepresented is “they have 1 congress person” instead of an argument about the number per population it’s kinda hard to tell which it is. The talk about the state being “big” makes me suspect it’s the former, however.
Removed by mod
Take some number of citizens C.
If the population of the state is P, let the number of Representatives ® be P/C, rounded up [R=ceil(P/C)].
Note how land area is not a part of the formula.
If Texas were the size of Detroit while maintaining the total population size, would you argue in favor of reducing their representatives to 1 or even 0?
If the answer is yes, you need to take a civics class. Your question is like asking how much wax you need to make a crayon be blue; the hue of the crayon is entirely independent of the total amount of wax. Hopefully that’s an analogy you understand.
Removed by mod