Jump to content

Ten oz

Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Ten oz

  1. 3 hours ago, hoola said:

    could it be that the Fermi paradox is caused by

    I have always felt the Fermi paradox falsely assumes that we (Humans) know/would be able to determine the evidence. We take it for granted that we're intelligent and often view intelligence in absolute terms rather than something relative to our understanding.

    I think you are implying that life in the Universe is potentially parasitic? That an abundance of it perhaps leads to worlds ends? If that is what you are speculating I think it would be worth a discussion in 'Speculation' but I don't see how it relates to RBG's seat. 

  2. If Trump end up in Prison after leaving the White House it will be unprecedented and trigger Congress to create some type of protocol for what happens. Does a imprisoned former President still get Secret Service protection, National Security briefings, a salary, etc, etc as all former Presidents do? What happens to lifetime appointees of a criminal President should be part of that conversation. I personally think ethically any Federal Attorney or Judge should resign or at a minimum offer to resign.

    Trump is a named co-conspirator in Michael Cohen's Felon convictions, Trump has pending Sex Assault cases, Trump tax records potentially open to the door to fraud & tax evasion, etc, etc. Trump very well may end up in prison just based on the information we already have. That is information learned while DOJ and the Senate is protecting him. Once that protection is gone and further investigations are performed, ones Trump can't just refuse subpoenas for or cite executive privilege, Trump may still be charged with obstruction of justice, abuse of power, or worse. 

    Creating a standard for how law & order well as trust in our public institutions are restore following the imprisonment of a criminal POTUS will be a huge job. A first for the nation. How to handle lifetime appointments made by that criminal simply has to be part of it.

  3. It will be interesting to see what Trump owes in State taxes and how the disclosures potentially leave Trump vulnerable to fraud charges. Trump has a history of lying about his assets to secure loans and investors. While it is unlikely Florida would go after Trump for tax evasion New York absolutely will and many of the interested parties (Banks, Contractors, Investors, etc) are spread across a couple other localities which would be likely to go after Trump as well like DC, NJ, and NV.

    Michael Cohen who worked as Trump's personal lawyer recently said the following about Trump's taxes: "biggest fear is that if his tax return is released, that there’s a whole slew of organizations of accountants and forensic accountants that will rip through it and he will end up with a massive tax bill, fraud penalties, fines and possibly even tax fraud.” HERE

    A federal pardon would not save Trump from State charges. If Trump broke the law in NY, NJ, or etc and those states go after Trump there is nothing the DOJ, Congress, or White House can do to interfere.

  4. Wealth attainment is the over arching motivation for a lot of people in American society. Many view attending University as just a platform to a good paying job, deify business owners because they provide jobs, and many even project positive traits upon those who merely inherited their wealth. The fixation on money supersede all else. In U.S. politics Environmental discussions are nearly always boxed into economic discussions centered around jobs and costs. If even one Billionaire might get their wings clipped by a policy, no matter what the science says, it is a hard stop politically. Likewise for Healthcare, nutrition, public safety, etc. Economic concerns take precedence and it often isn't even close.

    Of course its short sighted. Long term economic outlooks would be improved by following science. Not just that but money is worthless if humans extinct ourselves. However when it comes to money real time generally satiates ones passions greater than future potentials. I think if given the choice most people would take a millions dollars today over $2 million ten years from now. That is where I see the real battle existing. People already see the jobs related to Oil & Gas. Already understand the economic benefit. To accept the science the damage burning Oil is doing to the environment there needs to be an equal economic impetus people can see in real time. America isn't divorced from science America can't divorce science from money.

  5. 5 hours ago, CharonY said:

    While I think that is a step in the right direction, I doubt it would have a lot of impact for a range of reasons. In no particular order:

    - Information and entertainment have been mixed to such a degree that most folks apparently do not distinguish them anymore. Fox News has a small news segment and a huge opinion making machinery, for example. The latter has a much higher impact on public opinion than the former. One could say the same about talk shows and other entertainment segments that have become alternatives to news.

    - Media consumption has changed to a degree that a significant proportion of the population does not care where information comes from, as long as it is something that they feel strongly about. Case in point, stupid conspiracy theories are spreading like wildfire, and there is not a single serious news source behind it. Just random folks sharing it and to many this is enough to make it reality.

    - Studies have shown that lies created to evoke emotions (typically outrage) spread much faster through social media than anything informative. Again, I think the distinction between trusted and fake or entertainment sources is of no relevance for many folks and I suspect it will get worse. People now grow up in constant communication with folks that may not even be real persons. Maybe this is an old man yelling at cloud situation, but in class I see an increasing proportion of students that are outrageously misinformed. While many (if not most) can still be educated I feel that it is getting harder and harder. The signal to noise ratio has been so bad, that you have to fight noise almost constantly now.

    - Connected to that, folks have grown more skeptical of experts of any sorts, but at the same time random folks with no expertise are declared experts, which further erodes trust. This can be expanded to traditional news outlets, which are not trusted by a significant segment of the population. It is like the Murdoch empire on steroids but more nebulous. 




    I am not opposed to incremental improvement. Steps in the right direction is a useful place to start. Of course more needs to be done but good isn't the enemy of great.

  6. 8 hours ago, CharonY said:

    It was a dig on the assumption that things will be better after a second Trump presidency. But to be fair, even if Biden wins, I am not sure how much is ultimately salvagable. Social media for example has succeeded in creating custom-made alternative realities for folks, ultimately disruption any discourse one might have.  If we cannot agree on what is real, how can we agree on how to deal with issues? 

    I fear that in the long run folks will be able to fully manipulate the way we consume and communicate information to such a degree that democracy becomes nothing more than a meme. And right now we see that certain actors such as China and Russia have been very successful at this and especially right-wing political groups are gleefully embracing it. 

    I think a lot of people mistakenly assume media is already policed to a greater degree than it is. That laws in place for false advertising and journalistic licensing ensure a reasonable amount of truth in anything broadly circulated. This assumption of protection contributes to the problem as it promotes confidence in the  information seen. At a minimum the govt should strive to implement the sort of regulations people mistakenly assume already exist.

    For example ads used to monetize YouTube videos are clearly labelled as Ads and even include timers letting one know how long the Ad will last. It creates a sense that there is a clear delineation between advertising content and others types of content. However there is not. In execution and impact there is no meaning difference in advertising between a something labelled as an Ad and content that serves the same purpose. YouTube fitness videos as an easy example. A video will have Ads for some supplement or whatever attached. Then separately the video itself will be of people who have sponsorships to promote particular products. So one clicks on a video thinking they will learn proper squatting form, knowing skip the Ads, then watch what basically might be a deceptively produced informerical for squatting accessories. 

    I think people should be able to discern between professional and non professional, sponsored and non sponsored, content. If a YouTube fitness personality receives money from a company (regardless what they claim that money is for) that info should be clearly identified just as Ads are. People should be aware they are not seeing unbiased information. Likewise for professional accounts on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook etc, etc. Asking social media giants to determine what is real and what is fake is too tall an ask. Their algorithms only know what is clicked on and viewed. Not what's true or false. However asking the Social Media giants to label professional accounts is easy. Alphabet Inc (Google) knows which YouTubers they are sending money to and can add revenue source disclosures that application process. I think knowing that the RNC, DNC, NRA, NAMBLA, Scientology, or whomever is paying the personality and or for the content viewed would make a big difference in how people view that content. 

  7. I am not familiar with competition being used this way. In deterministic evolutionary game theory and studies like Prisoner's Dilemma  selfish or self serving behavior is the opposite to cooperation. Not competition. I think that is where some of this conversation gets lost and people are posting past each other. Competition is being used as a substitute for selfish behavior (?).

  8. On 6/5/2020 at 3:32 PM, StringJunky said:

    Is it not really an unattainable aspiration because freedoms must always have limits?

    I agree that it is unattainable. There will always be limits. I think even if unrestricted by govt social norms would still demand a prescribed etiquette. In a aggressively male dominate society women would still feel intimidate or forced to follow social norms. The laws regarding speech would only serving as semantics. Likewise for a Jewish person living in a anti-semtic dominant society. Regardless of govt standards. Speaking freely against or in a different manner to social norms runs risks. At a job interview saying certain things can prevent one from getting the job. Assuming one wants the job they must follow a specific etiquette or face the consequences of not getting the job they want. Whether it is Govts, employers, peers, family, clergy, or etc we all have censorship in their lives. 

    On 6/5/2020 at 3:32 PM, StringJunky said:

    Where do we draw the lines between acceptable and not?

    It is arbitrary. The standard ethical arguments I am familiar with are that we draw the line at speech which threatens or promotes violence. Yet I see the predominant religions in the world often using threats and promote violence. I think the very concept of Hell exists as a threat. So as above it comes down to social norms/etiquette rather than anything definitive. Just the collective whims of a give society.

  9. 3 minutes ago, Area54 said:

    Then it is just as well that I did not do so. I simply noted , or at least implied,  that evolution (through processes of natural selection, sexual selection and genetic drift) has periodically "favoured" cooperative behaviour. It has also favoured competitive behaviour. Are you seriously challenging these points? If so, lets see some supporting evidence.

    You wrote "cooperation at every level from the cellular to the eco-system."  That is the conflation I was referencing. That isn't a description of both competitive and cooperation behaviors being favored. It is a messy contextually misuse of how national selection works and the meaning of cooperation.

    7 minutes ago, Area54 said:

    Well, there are broader usages of the term that can be productive in providing a perspective on aspects of biology

    Matters vital for an organism to live or interacting with its environment are called processes not cooperation. There are biological processes. That is a field of study. It is not useful to broaden the meaning of cooperation as you are.

    13 minutes ago, Area54 said:

    No idea where you got that. I have not suggested that evolution has goals

    Cooperation has goals.

    14 minutes ago, Area54 said:

    Which is precisely what I have been saying. The fact that we are also competiive is equally a product of evolution. This is Biology101. I am bemused it is even being dicsussed.

    Biology 101 studies the biological process. Not the pros & cons of competitiveness.


    Do you believe as a species Humans can exist without cooperation with one another? Do you believe as a species Humans can exist without competitiveness towards one another?

  10. 28 minutes ago, Area54 said:

    Well, if you ignore the countless examples of cooperation within nature that evolution has provided to practically every species then your conclusions are sound. Unfortunately for your argument it is refuted by the diversity and the quality and the quantity of evidence that shows the existence of cooperation at every level from the cellular to the eco-system. I respond to your unsupported assertion that places the emphasis upon cooperation and repeat my own: the success of any species is attributable to a blend of cooperation and competition.

    You may not like it, but scarcely any purchase, whether it be of a loaf, a textbook, or a fleet of main battle tanks, is not made without a decision between competitive providers. That is everything we use in our daily lives, from our food, to our homes, to highways we drive on, is the product of competitive decisions in which, if Tesco wins, then ASDA, Sainsbur's, Lidl and Waitrose all lose. (Or General Dynamics wins, Thales and BAe Systems lose.)

    Natural Selection isn't a process which should be conflated with cooperation in nature. More species have gone extinct than currently exist. The only species that can exist are the ones with characteristics suitable to the environment.Cooperation implies some form of intentional unified effort. Evolution doesn't have motives or goals. You're broadening definition out to the point they have no meaning. Describing ocean tides as cooperating with gravity may sound poetic or easily digestible but is inaccurate. Tides are influenced by gravity. There is no cooperation at play.

    A human individually would struggle to meet the demands of survival. Human's are a group living animal. Not a solitary animal. Humans require the assistance of other humans to survive. Humans evolved that way. We (Humans) are a cooperative species. We have lived in groups the entirety of our species existence. Sharing our knowledge, skills, goals, etc has allowed civilization to thrive. Competition has not been useful as cooperation.

  11. ^^^^I could be reading into this wrong. 100% could be imagining what isn't there. To me the face Melania makes is a reaction to the brief interaction between between Donald and Ivanka and not just dislike Ivanka. Melania smile, while forced as it mostly always is, seems standard. As Ivanka passes Donald moves a little and appears to look down at wear Ivanka is walking, what she is wear, or etc. That brief look is what appears to receive the negative response. It is hard to see on the video in the tweet because of the way its framed. Below is a wide shot.



  12. 1 hour ago, MigL said:

    Getting back to the OP, when M Trump says "Be best", it implies be the best YOU can be.

    I don't think Melania writes her public statements or takes much interest in them. Melania hasn't shown any interest in politics at all that I can perceive. Doesn't appear to be altruistic in anyway. She looks like a hostage a lot of the time. We know the White House has speech writers and publicists. I assume "Be best" came from those writers. Writers have a more strategic way of looking at things. Be best  is Innocuous enough to mean whatever one want to project on to it. I do not think it is specifically meant to mean anything. I think it's meant to be brief, cute, repeatable, and so on. I think this thread has probably already given Be best more thought than Melania has given it.

  13. @MigL, competition confined to international sport and organized sports broadly have clear established rules which cannot be changed mid play and all participants are volunteers. If people who didn't want to participate in a hockey game were forced to and the rules of the game manipulatable by top players than it would absolutely be bullying. The Olympic games and FIFA worldcup are poor analogies. No one is entering those competitions who doesn't want to be there, has had time to prepare, conformations of what the rules will be, etc, etc. Rate Race of life itself is far less of a safe pace. The rules are dynamic and people are often forced to participate in ways they do not want to and aren't comfortable with.

  14. 5 hours ago, MigL said:

    If you're going to generalize about certain groups, you had better ( at least ) specifically define those groups.
    Left/right or liberal/conservative can be vastly different from Democrat/Republican.
    While Democrats/Republicans favor well-defined policy issues, left/right, or liberal/conservative, are relative terms.

    In practice there is no meaningful difference between a conservative vs republican. The margins of support during elections are virtually identical. Likewise for Democrats and liberals. The distinction appears to merely exist as a preference in labeling.Ultimately their political habits are same.


    nearly all those with consistently conservative values went for Trump (98% to less than 1% for Clinton). Those who held conservative views on most political values (“mostly conservative”) favored Trump by 87% to 7%. Republican validated voters reported choosing Trump by a margin of 92% to 4% https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/


  15. 14 hours ago, Daniel Waxman said:

    right-wing views seem to be more vulnerable to manipulation based on fear, e.g. terrorists want to attack

    In 2019 polling showed 46% of people were somewhat or very concerned about themselves or a family member being victims of a terrorist attack, Here. In 2019 polling showed 48% of people were somewhat or very concerned about themselves or a family member being victims of a mass shooting, Here.

    Statistically even levels of fear among the population for terrorism and mass shootings yet Right-wing attitudes between the two very greatly. When it comes to fear associated with gun violence the Right is not willing to do anything. When it comes to fear associated with terrorism the Right is willing to do a lot. Fear doesn't appear to be motivating factor or else one would assume the Right would equally care about gun violence as they do terrorism.

    14 hours ago, Daniel Waxman said:

     People who have left-wing views seem to be more vulnerable to manipulation based on shame, e.g. excluding outsiders is xenophobic

    Polling shows half (50%) of the U.S. believes Christians face discrimination, Here. Among republicans 75% believe White in the U.S. face discrimination, Here. The political left-wing, far as I can tell, doesn't respond to those claims of discrimination. The Left doesn't appear burden with shame the Christians and White Republicans may accuse them of xenophobia.

    15 hours ago, Daniel Waxman said:

    If we assume the answer is yes to both

    I do not assume this.

  16. 18 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    I would posit that the current presidency is sufficiently weird to make historic precedence an unreliable predictor.

    I am not implying it is predictive of anything. Just that its interest. Clinton, Bush, Obama are the last 3 Presidents to consecutively all serve out 2 full terms since Teddy Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson left office in 1921. So it would be unique in that respect if Trump were to get another term.

    It is possible that the streak of consecutive 2 term presidents says something about the nature of partisanship and media politcal advocacy in modern politics. If Nixon was POTUS today I don't think there is a chance Watergate would be enough to force him out of office. Especially if Nixon has devoted cable news pundits making his defense around the clock and social media.To that point had Bill Clinton been POTUS in Nixon's day such a public lie as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" would probably have resulted in his removal from office. I also don't think Bush could have survived 2 questionable elections where it was broadly suspected his campaign cheated. The threshold to get rid of a Presidents seems far greater today. So much so I have no idea what will happen if Trump declares victory in November, claims the vote in various swing states is wrong, and just refuses to leave.

    41 minutes ago, iNow said:

    I’m glad you clarified that, as I too missed that “completed” term caveat

    Yeah, just an additional thought I had after we (StringJunky and I) cleared up who the last incumbent to lose was

  17. ^^^^Which is why I said "did not complete 2 full terms". JFK was killed, LBJ didn't run for what would've been his 2nd elected term, and Nixon resigned. Ford, Carter, Bush lost re-election. That makes 6 since WW2 that failed to serve 2 full terms.

  18. 33 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    I must have remembered wrong. Probably said only been three in the last forty years, starting with Ford, then Carter, HW Bush

    6 of the last 10 president did not complete 2 full terms. Clinton, Bush, and Obama all completing 2 full is actually an unusual streak. One has to go back a hundred years to find another.

  19. 1 hour ago, MigL said:

    It's about time that ( at least some ) Republicans placed country above party.

    “Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us,” - James Mattis (Trump's appointed former Sec of Defense.)

    “I don’t think he’s fit for office. I don’t think he has the competence to carry out the job,” - John Bolton (Trump's appointed National Security Advisor)

    “a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn’t like to read, doesn’t read briefing reports, doesn’t like to get into the details of a lot of things, but rather just kind of says [what’s on his mind.]” -  Rex Tillerson (Trump's Appointed Sec of State).

    Trump's own cabinet has rejected him. Trump is on his 4th National Security Advisor, 3rd Chief of Staff, 2nd Attorney General, 2nd Sec State, is shopping for a 3rd Sec of DHS, etc, etc in just 3yrs in office. Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen named Trump as a co-conspirator in felons. Mitt Romney, former Republican nominee for President, voted to impeach Trump. It isn't even partisan to say Trump is criminally corrupt. Republicans say it. Trump's own staff says it. It is really disgusting situation.

    One of the things I like so much about Biden selecting Harris as his running mate is that I feel it singles a desire/willingness to hold people accountable. Nothing like this has been done before. Nixon was guilt of a single crime (at least far as the public was concerned) and resigned. The follow admin really didn't need to do much of an extensive dive into things. With Trump there is a myriad of situation which will require investigation. Everything the govt has entered into under Trump needs to be looked at through a new lens. Weapons deal with Saudi Arabia w/khashoggi killing, Favorable govt contracts to allies, Chinese patents to Trump family members & associates, insider trading, intelligence sharing with Russia, etc, etc, etc. Then there is just the partisan political nonsense where Republicans ignored congressional authority, obstructed federal investigations, misappropriated funds, etc, etc. Harris knows the law and it have to bring all her experience to bare navigating between which things should be dealt with as policy changes via Congress, executive authority, or referred to the Attorney Generals office.


    2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

    On a sobering note, mentioned by  some election statistician, a sitting President hasn't lost their second election for forty years...

    Bush lost as an incumbent in 1992. That was just 28yrs ago. Not 40yrs ago.

  20. 8 hours ago, iNow said:

    An analysis I heard that resonates with me:

    In the 80s, Reagan appealed to huge numbers of people who didn’t normally vote Republican. These individuals became known as the Reagan Democrats. What’s happening now and what we all need to encourage and support are the huge number of people who don’t normally vote Democrat and help them become Biden Republicans. 

    Republicans lost the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 national elections. Following the SCOTUS decision on Shelby County vs Holder in 2014 Republicans have massively ramped up voter disenfranchisement efforts. Courts have ruled against many of the new voting practices in FL, GA, SC, WI, etc. It is a game of whack-O-mole though. Soon as a ruling come down new ways to disenfranchise come and the battle starts again. Elections don't get do-overs either. So even when it is decided a state had an unlawful system in place during a previous election the law is just changed moving forward.

    Democrats do not need to appeal to some new unlikely voting block of people. Democrats already receive more votes. Democrats demonstratively (polls, voter registration, voting history, etc) have more support. The issue is fair elections. The President openly admits he is blocking Postal Service funding to weakening ability of successful mail in voting. Zero attempts are being made to keep that a secret or spin it as being about anything else. Despite a referendum in FL that people overwhelming supported to get a million people their voting rights back State officials are still fighting it in court. Who knows what percentage will actually get to vote in Nov in FL. That's game. That (voter disenfranchisement) is what will determine the outcome in many localities and thus the electoral college. Trump isn't wasting one second of his time attempting to broaden his appeal, reach out to new groups of voters, and far as I can tell doesn't even have stated plans for what he'd do if given 4 more years.

    Joe Biden will win the popular vote. Every knows that. Democrats have more support. The electoral game is county by county in FL, GA, MI, OH, PA, and WI. Sabotaging mail in voting in Philly and Tampa, limiting polling locations creating 8hr long lines in Milwaukee & Cleveland, drafting confusing ballots, changing registration deadlines, limiting early voting, etc, etc is how Republicans plan to win. Democrats need people on the ground shining light on local requires and ensuring everyone understands how and where to vote. Democrats already have more supporters. Democrats don't need to run around flip over rocks looking for more. Not if their votes will wind up in the trash anyway. Democrats need to work to best ensure the voters they have get their votes counted.


  21. 2 minutes ago, Dord said:

    At the risk of being called out for going off topic, I have the same opinion with the American's Second Amendment from over 200 years ago.

    Times, they are a changin'

    This doesn't have to be off topic. The Majority of people in the nation support gun reform, Here. However it continues not to happen. Do you feel there could be a connection between the way Representation has been proportioned and the lack of responsiveness to what people broadly support?

    3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    I said the legislation should be revisited, not necessarily changed.

    I pointed out that much has changed. I didn't say you specifically advocated for change

  22. 3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    I personally think any legistation laid down more than 50 year's ago, is vulnerable to deliberate misinterpretation. 

    It was written for that moment in time and, however well intentioned or cleverly designed, every generation should revisit with the intention of an update.

    The modern way to eliminate gerrymandering, I think is proportional representation; although, no doubt a future (50

    + years from now) Trump would have a go. 

    To your point the 19th amendment which gave Women the right was passed in 1919. That was several years after The 1911 House Reappointment Act which was used as the ceiling for House members. Also 1911 was 5 decades before the Voting rights act was passed. A lot has changed.

  23. 13 hours ago, swansont said:

    And that was about the time we crossed from being more rural to more urban. 750k per rep vs 120k is a large imbalance in representation 

    I think it gives national parties greater influence. Out of 435 seat only about 80 are considered competitive. This forces those interested in running to conform to which ever major party owns their region's seats. If one were born and raised in Idaho and has ambitions of representing their state they would just about have to become Republican. Both House Reps and Senators are Republicans and no one is winning one of those seats without the endorsement of the Republican party. The Republican primaries for those seats are good as the actual election. Yet Ada County ,capital region of Idaho and the most populated county (480k), isn't partisan as the State. Trump won Idaho by 32 points but  only won Ada County by 8 points. Boise has a Democrat as Mayor. There are hundreds of thousands on people in Idaho who are open and or want more diverse representation but won't get it. Candidates in ID will continue pandering to the national party. Same applies the opposite way in Democratic controlled regions.

    It is ironic to me because those point of allowing States control over their own districting and to have House members in the first place was to enforce an amount of sovereignty. Give States the independence to self govern. The opposite has happened. Huge portions of the map are under national party rule. I feel like increasing the number of seats and lowering the constituent to Rep. ratio would help but am not entirely sure.

    13 hours ago, OldChemE said:

    I don't think the number of people represented is a direct issue.   That is, I don;t think it matters if a district is 750k or 120 k as long as they are all the same population.  But-- the disparity in district populations and the gerrymandering are issues.  I would love to see some simple-minded criterion for districts that would minimize gerrymandering, but I'm not sure what it should be.  "All districts shall consist of a single rectangle of sufficient size to encompass x people?"  I suspect this might be like th famous problem of how to draw a map in different colors without having two adjacent areas the same color.

    "Two-thirds of our population lives in the top 100 metropolitan areas, and 84 percent of Americans live in all 363 metros. Being in a metro means being tied to someplace else; the Census Bureau defines metropolitan areas as a city of 50,000 or more, plus the adjacent counties that have close social and economic ties to the urban core. " Here

    There are only 15 cities in the U.S. with at least 750k people. Metro areas include associated cities and town. There are 74 Metros in the nation with at least 750k people. The majority of the population lives in a metro region but not necessarily in an individual location with at least 750k people. So on the surface the ratio doesn't seem that bad. Perhaps in places like NYC and the San Francisco Bay Area where Reps have small geographical areas do to population density it works well. What about States that only have a single Rep like AK, MT, ND, SD, and WY. Surely the needs of people in a fairly well populated city like Anchorage AK (400k) are different than that more isolated populations in AK like Nome (4k)? Along those lines there are several states that do not contain a single metro area with at least 750k. Meaning all those regions House reps are responsible for numerous independent localities. 

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.