RT @[email protected]

People in California and New York pay 20% of federal taxes and have 4 Senators. People in 21 states--AK ID UT MT WY ND SD NE KS OK IA MO AR LA MS AL TN KY IN WV SC--pay 15% of federal taxes and have 42 Senators.

What's that old saying? Oh yeah, taxation without representation.

๐Ÿฆ๐Ÿ”—: https://twitter.com/KBAndersen/status/1610748512810967043

Kurt Andersen on Twitter

โ€œPeople in California and New York pay 20% of federal taxes and have 4 Senators. People in 21 states--AK ID UT MT WY ND SD NE KS OK IA MO AR LA MS AL TN KY IN WV SC--pay 15% of federal taxes and have 42 Senators. What's that old saying? Oh yeah, taxation without representation.โ€

Twitter
@maxboot this is why the house exists
@maxboot But representation in Congress was not built around how much taxpayers pay, right? ๐Ÿค”
@maxboot -
You could also contrast the Senate underrepresentation of Texas & Florida vs. Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and other low-population blue states, but the fundamental point is that the archaic 2-senators-per-state rule is in conflict with the one-person-one-vote principle.
@maxboot
Remember the senate was never about democracy, quite the opposite. When founded, the oldest โ€œdemocracyโ€ in the world only gave the vote to white males who owned property.
The distribution of taxes is a reminder of how Americans bite the hands that feed them
@maxboot Yeah... It's called "every state gets 2 senators, no more, no less". If you want to look at *representation*, look at how many *representatives* belong to those groups.
@maxboot FWIW, the two-chamber parliamentary system was designed to represent a) the people, in the House of Representatives, and b) the States (of the United *States* of America). So, it's by design. But when they came up with it, you didn't have this disparity in the number of inhabitants per state. And that indeed results in an imbalance in power now.
@maxboot Now do Puerto Rico. :)