05-08-2021, 06:48 AM
(05-08-2021, 02:32 AM)Dill Wrote: Really! Well look what you'd be cutting out - - long ways from PA and OH.
This all gave me an idea. Republicans tend to point to these maps that highlight land area with the colors because these rural districts with low population density are larger than the condensed, tightly packed districts. However, in some states there is a large percentage of the land that is publicly owned. So, Wyoming's land is 55.9% publicly owned. We should come up with a way to reduce political power based on the percentage of publicly owned land since that land isn't held by a citizen with a vote, but the collective citizenry.
I'm joking of course, but it's a fun thought experiment to think about Alaska (95.8% public), Nevada (87.8%), Utah (75.2%), Idaho (70.4%), Oregon (60.4%), Arizona (56.8%), Wyoming (55.9%), and California (52.1%) having their political power reduced so much as states where the majority of their land is publicly held.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
