> Awesome idea [...] Or did you perhaps have some gerrymandering-esque idea to limit these 'benefits' to liberal metropolitan areas?

What? It sounds like you're crowing over some kind of "gotcha", but what is it?

If we both agree on the same principle, what's the problem? Namely, that citizens being disproportionately (un)represented in their "democratic" government is typically bad, and especially when it's just from ancient quirks of boundary line development.

On reflection, I suppose there's another explanation: Some people go through life with no real principles, flip-flopping based on whatever is temporarily advantageous to "their team". Is that it? Are you projecting your lifestyle onto me, and feeling the thrill of "winning" at being badder?

________

In either case, more legislative details are in this older comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45690336

▲

quantummagic 2 hours ago | parent [-]

But they weren't just "ancient" quirks. They were commitments made to your fellow Americans in smaller states. Commitments that were required to allow the formation of the country at all; and as such should be shown a little more respect than being referred to as ancient quirks. That's not to say that they should be forever set in stone, but we should at least proceed with an honest portrayal of why we're in this situation in the first place, and what's at stake for the different parties affected.

	▲	Terr_ an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> But they weren't just "ancient" quirks. How else would you describe the way populations grew more places labeled X and not places labeled Y over the course of 250 years? > They were commitments made to your fellow Americans in smaller states. Commitments that were required to allow the formation of the country at all; Is this just a complaint about phrasing, or are you claiming some commitment would be broken? My proposal has no effect on any commitments made to states, neither in letter nor in spirit. It doesn't change the rules for Senate nor House representation, and it doesn't infringe on the sovereignty of any state. If anything is restores state-sovereignty in one narrow scenario, a scenario no signatory ever believed was an intended feature. Namely, the betrayal which happens when when humans (residing within the borders of a high-population state) are partially disenfranchised, and coalition of low-pop states vows: "Even though it's entirely within your own borders, we will veto any attempts to fix it. No other states except us can be small, we are pulling up the ladder. In order for us to keep an advantage your residents must suffer."