Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

pk10534 t1_j38eybd wrote

I'm a little confused. Delaware has 1.003 million people and one house representative, and Montana has 1.104 million people and...also has one house representative. How does Montana have 80% more representation when it has a larger population but the same number of representatives? I'm not saying you're incorrect, I just don't understand what context I am missing.

Another statement here that is throwing me off is the assertion "it favors the smallest states". While the most represented states are fairly small, the least represented states are also pretty small too: Delaware, Idaho, West Virginia, Utah, and Iowa. None of the *30* largest states are even in the bottom 5. In fact, if we look towards the middle of the chart, it appears that large states like California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, North Carolina, Texas, etc are right around the average. And in the "above average" column, we find Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, and South Carolina - all of which are in the top half of states by population save for Oregon (27th). It seems like being a small state might do you some favors, but being a small state might also mean you're at the bottom of the chart too. And if you're a large state, you'll probably be somewhere in the middle.

13

SexyDoorDasherDude OP t1_j38fq5l wrote

Thats why its better to use averages to demonstrate a point. And no -Montana doesn't have 'one representative'.

−4

pk10534 t1_j38giim wrote

Montana had one representative until this year, and now they have two. But they also have a larger population than Delaware, which would understandably mean they would get the seat first.

And yes, I get using averages, I’m not contesting that - but your assertion made it sound like the chart would move from large states to small states, when the dataset provided really showed it going from small states to large states to some medium ones and small again. West Virginia and Delaware and Idaho certainly don’t seem to be favored

14

SexyDoorDasherDude OP t1_j38gqvu wrote

Thats why I used the phrase "on average" to demonstrate the point.

−11

pk10534 t1_j38hfo8 wrote

You’re leaving out a lot of context though. And given your hostile response to any criticism, it feels like you’re more focused on pushing a narrative than you are genuinely trying to explain allocations of representatives

16

SexyDoorDasherDude OP t1_j38hmhr wrote

I understand your criticism but I cant alter the data so that it fits someone elses perspective, that would be lying.

−15

pk10534 t1_j38l15l wrote

Nice try. Nobody asked you to alter data, or has questioned the validity of the data, im asking you to explain your own personal interpretations of it that you slid in to it. Leave the data be. I’m talking about your subjective claims about it that seem to be slightly Dubious

5

SexyDoorDasherDude OP t1_j38l87i wrote

name one thing that this data doesnt prove

−3

pk10534 t1_j38mmru wrote

You keep talking about the data when you know that’s not what I’m criticizing. Im questioning YOUR subjective interpretations of the data that you typed out. And I’ve already typed an entire paragraph explaining why I felt your analysis was leaving context out. At this point it feels like you’re being purposely facetious

10

grandmawaffles t1_j38h8t1 wrote

It depends on the point your trying to make. Average isn’t always the best analytical metric.

3