Not to take away from your excellent points, but this caught my attention: "... (Montana has 1 senator for each 505K people, California has one for each 20.5M people, thus Montana has about 40 times the representation in the senate as California) ..."
Given how little both chambers are actually accomplishing lately, I'd like to see the calculus mathing out the further dilution of representation for constituents in, say, Santos/Devolder/Ravache's district compared to those in Schiff's.
Not to take away from your excellent points, but this caught my attention: "... (Montana has 1 senator for each 505K people, California has one for each 20.5M people, thus Montana has about 40 times the representation in the senate as California) ..."
Given how little both chambers are actually accomplishing lately, I'd like to see the calculus mathing out the further dilution of representation for constituents in, say, Santos/Devolder/Ravache's district compared to those in Schiff's.