I have seen several diaries over the years discussing increasing the number of Congressional districts from the current mandated 435, as a means of improving the political makeup to be better for Dems. Since they count towards the Electoral College, this also helps diminish the role of smaller states (population-wise), where every state gets 2 Senators in the Senate, and as such at least 3 EVs.
And when I see stories about plots to break up states, it is usually in a more Republican frame of mind. Because in our political system, the general wisdom is that the smallest states wield an outsized amount of power.
Looking at it another way, in our political system, there is effectively little advantage to being a high-population state.
Ostensibly, you might think high-population states would wield more power in the more population-representative House of Representatives. But because of our two-party dominated political system, it doesn’t really work out that way. Even if California sends 50 Representatives to Washington, if they are not of the same party that controls the House majority, they could see themselves wielding less effective power than Wyoming’s lone Representative.
Obviously this is a gross simplification, and I understand that high-population states can and do effect national policy in a large way that is not reflected above. But I feel that would also be the case even if a state like California splits into multiple states.
Consider the following scenarios for California:
Current Makeup:
Number of Representatives |
53 (12% of 435) |
Number of senators |
2 (2% of 100) |
number of electoral college votes |
55 (10% of 538) |
Compare that to the most extreme case: Since California’s population is roughly 39 million, while Wyoming the least populous state is roughly 600k, California could theoretically divide into 65 states, all of equal population of Wyoming.
Assuming the same rules apply: 435 max congressional districts, 2 Senators per state, DC gets 3 Electoral votes equal to the lowest state.
California’s power at the national level would look like this:
Number of Representatives |
65 (15% of 435) |
Number of senators |
130 (57% of 228) |
number of electoral college votes |
195 (29% of 666) |
In all of those factors, the population of California would be better off. More representation in the House, more representation in the Senate, and more representation in the Electoral College.
Granted, this is an extreme case, and there would be a lot of logistical nightmare towards dividing the single state of California into any multiple of new states. But I am mainly illustrating the point, that in terms of the makeup of our country, with regards to how political power is divided, these high-population states should really consider what they are sacrificing, when sharing the country’s power with states that are far less populous.
Add in our general Liberal principles of equal representation in government, and there really is a strong case that allowing this huge disparity in power is not just an irrational situation, but also a serious injustice.
Now, I am not suggesting the above scenario itself, as dividing California into 65 states does not sound ideal nor politically tenable. But it demonstrates the benefits of such a process, and is still in the realm of what is legally possible.
First of all, as the Democratic Party, it is broadly regarded as politically viable to grant Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and other US territories statehood. There are also initiatives such as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would help resolve the problem of the Presidency’s Electoral College, but is still up for debate if it would even be Constitutional. And, while I think these are great first steps that should be seriously pursued first and foremost, if we are coming from a stance that these are proposals that have political traction, then the idea of splitting up large states should be as well.
If we are thinking of a more reasonable proposal than dividing California into dozens of states, it could still be a matter of a few of the largest states — California, New York, and maybe Texas might arguably want to get in on this, for example — and only a few splits at most. A single convention could also be convened, for example, to allow any state that wants to consider this route to be considered, provided that any resulting states do not end up with a smaller population than the current smallest. Historical precedence, after all, includes such situations where multiple states were borne from such deals.
Obviously, they would not see the political gains of the most extreme case cited above, but even being able to divide two or three of such states would be a huge step towards a more representative government.
And, while the Constitutional barriers to statehood can be quite high, if Dems are able to push through initiatives like D.C. and Puerto Rico’s statehood, this further step should be considered just as achievable.
Of course, there is one final consideration:
There is probably a practical reason up until this point why large population states have not so far taken steps in such a route. Perhaps the threat alone has been enough to allow the main power wielders in the federal government to see the Pandora’s Box that this would unleash, and have done their best to keep the large states placated.
And yes, even outside of hypothetical, I get that the Republican Party would plainly see how California trying to divide in multiple states would be to their detriment, and do everything in their power to oppose it. But I also see that we are living in a world where proposals like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, Medicare-for-all, the Equal Rights Amendment, and D.C.’s statehood, are all being regarded as politically viable, and certainly worth working towards, even in light of Republican obstructionism. And I see a state-division process as being right up there in terms of what should be considered.
Finally, with today’s political climate, with a Republican Party more beholden to a few wealthy individuals than the country or even their own constituents, and an Oval Office occupant who has done more to spurn these influential states like California and New York than they have ever experienced up to this point, it seems now, more than ever, the benefits of remaining such huge-population states with low-political power are vanishing more and more.