I remember Kinsley writing an article about this back in 2004. It seems quite un-American to me for someone to say that one person is more "American" than another, simply by virtue of the fact that one of America's strengths is its diversity - not PC diversity, but the idea (if not reality) that we are open to people of all nations, races, and creeds.

I certainly have a certain romantic attachment to some small-town stuff, but it's not "more American," it's just one chunk of what makes America what it is.

Reminds me of the PC vs. Mac ads, where Macs are small-town Americans, and they like to say they're the real deal, and it's time for the rest of America (the PC) to say, "I'm America, too."

Of course, part of the problem is that the electoral system gives small-town Americans a disproportionate amount of political power (Wyoming and California deserve the same representation in the Senate?), so that makes them think they are "more representative" than they are.

"Of course, part of the problem is that the electoral system gives small-town Americans a disproportionate amount of political power (Wyoming and California deserve the same representation in the Senate?), so that makes them think they are "more representative" than they are."

Let's see, Wyoming has one member in the house of representatives. California has 53, (as of 2004). So, how do you figure that Wyoming has "a disproportionate amount of political power."? That's obscene. Sorry that the constitution annoyed you by establishing that each state gets two senators.

I wonder who wins when the single representatives for Wyoming, Montana and Alaska come up against California's 53 representatives.

Everyone gets equal rep in the Senate. A bicameral legislature was the founders' check against one group of states getting it over on the other by sheer force of numbers. Same with the electoral college. But if you consider that slaves were counted as 3/5 of a represented person but had no sufferage or representation at all (quite the opposite, actually!) you could say the red state types have been running the blue state types ragged and gaming the system since day 1.

"Reminds me of the PC vs. Mac ads, where Macs are small-town Americans, and they like to say they're the real deal, and it's time for the rest of America (the PC) to say, "I'm America, too.""

Are you trying to say that most Americans are buggy and don't work often, whereas small-town Americans look nice but are horribly overpriced?

I'm talking about the Senate. Wyoming has 1.4% of the population of California but the same representation. Isn't that the definition of disproportionate?

Yes, I know it's in the Constitution, and a lot of people say "q.e.d." at that point. But once you get past the "wisdom of the founding fathers" mantra, it's silly. I understand the desire to protect the small states, but it was done when the ratio of population was not so distorted. There's just no logical reason why, if you believe in equal representation, that the Senate setup should exist (although I like having a body where they have longer terms). Senators representing 25% of the population can pass legislation, and 18% can block legislation through filibuster.

Wyoming *should* have less say in our government than California because it has 1.4% of California's population. Besides, it's not like California reps are a united block - we've got plenty of Democratic and Republican districts.

I don't for a second think the Senate will get abolished. My real point is that voters in smaller states have a disproportionate amount of power in the electoral college and thus the presidential election. This leads the candidates to cater to them more than they would have to otherwise.

California: population estimate = 37,700,00. California members of the electoral college = 53. Divide and you get 685,455 people represented by each elector.

Wyoming: Population estimate = 509,000. Wyoming has 3 electors. Each elector reflects the votes of 169,765 citizens

Therefore, a person's vote in Wyoming has 4 times the influence as a Californian's.

Now, I understand that the "winner-take-all" policy and state tendencies (Wyoming is safely Republican, while California is quite blue.) confound these numbers