On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:



Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport
yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of
North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and
ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of
population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states
each to have two U.S. Senators.

So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one
man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but
not the Senate.

North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a
million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is
represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000
persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont,
Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a
population of 40 million.

Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness
matters, states with less than a million people should only have one
U.S. Senator.


The answer to both you and your wife is because the Constitution calls
for two US Senators per state. It says nothing about population of
those states in terms of number of Senators.

Think of it this way: The country is called, "The United *States* of
America". Each state is equal in rights regardless of population or
how backward you and other elitist would like to believe.

On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 14:35:53 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 10/6/18 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/6/2018 8:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/6/18 7:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:


Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue.



Maybe by a few but once the final vote is taken today and Kavanaugh
is very likely confirmed most Dems will pull in their horns on this
and crank their gunsights onto a new subject .... like Trump's father's
tax returns from 60 years ago.

Mid terms are coming up, don'cha know?



Kavanaugh will always be known as "Beer Kavanaugh," or "Sex Offender
Kavanaugh," or, worse, "Trump's Boy Kavanaugh." At some point, he will
have to pay the piper.


Not directly related (to Kavanaugh) but I suppressed my gag reflexes
last night and watched Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC deliver a lecture
on the structure of our government with particular attention to the
Senate.Â* Citing his vast experience as an aide to Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan he criticized the founding fathers
as being "wrong" in the structure of government.Â* Much
like Hillary, he said the founding fathers assumed the general
population were too "stupid" to vote directly on the issues and there
fore created the representative form of government with the chosen
few ruling.



Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport
yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of
North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and
ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of
population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states
each to have two U.S. Senators.

So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one
man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but
not the Senate.

North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a
million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is
represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000
persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont,
Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a
population of 40 million.

Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness
matters, states with less than a million people should only have one
U.S. Senator.

My wife also commented that she really didn't know why North and South
Dakota were two separate states. Ironically, that was my comment more
than 50 years ago when I visited both states with a college buddy who
lived in Vermillion, South Dakota. There's nothing on which to
differentiate them.

She did have well-attended seminars for her presentations on opioids.
Damned drugs are a big problem everywhere.

I wonder why any two states (or more) bordering each other are separate states? Does that make me as
smart as your wife?

When you are talking about states like Maryland and Virginia, it is
because they hate each other. 70 years ago watermen were shooting at
each other arguing about fishing rights. After all the river does
belong to Maryland, up to the high water line on the Virginia shore.
I am not sure it is still true but when I left, Maryland, Virginia and
DC were the only 3 jurisdictions in the country that did not share
driver's license data. I was revoked in DC and Maryland never heard a
word. I knew people revoked in Virginia who just moved across the
bridge and got a Maryland license.

On 10/7/18 3:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:



Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport
yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of
North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and
ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of
population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states
each to have two U.S. Senators.

So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one
man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but
not the Senate.

North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a
million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is
represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000
persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont,
Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a
population of 40 million.

Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness
matters, states with less than a million people should only have one
U.S. Senator.


The answer to both you and your wife is because the Constitution calls
for two US Senators per state.Â* It says nothing about population of
those states in terms of number of Senators.

Think of it this way:Â* The country is called, "The United *States* of
America".Â* Each state is equal in rights regardless of population or
how backward you and other elitist would like to believe.


Yeah, we both understand the history. That doesn't make it fair to the
concept of one man/woman one vote, and it gives too much clout to the
empty states. But you Repubs love that. As for this being the "United"
states, no way, Jose.

On 10/7/18 3:25 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 14:35:53 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 10/6/18 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/6/2018 8:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/6/18 7:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:


Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue.



Maybe by a few but once the final vote is taken today and Kavanaugh
is very likely confirmed most Dems will pull in their horns on this
and crank their gunsights onto a new subject .... like Trump's father's
tax returns from 60 years ago.

Mid terms are coming up, don'cha know?



Kavanaugh will always be known as "Beer Kavanaugh," or "Sex Offender
Kavanaugh," or, worse, "Trump's Boy Kavanaugh." At some point, he will
have to pay the piper.


Not directly related (to Kavanaugh) but I suppressed my gag reflexes
last night and watched Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC deliver a lecture
on the structure of our government with particular attention to the
Senate.Â* Citing his vast experience as an aide to Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan he criticized the founding fathers
as being "wrong" in the structure of government.Â* Much
like Hillary, he said the founding fathers assumed the general
population were too "stupid" to vote directly on the issues and there
fore created the representative form of government with the chosen
few ruling.



Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport
yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of
North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and
ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of
population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states
each to have two U.S. Senators.

So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one
man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but
not the Senate.

North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a
million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is
represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000
persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont,
Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a
population of 40 million.

Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness
matters, states with less than a million people should only have one
U.S. Senator.

My wife also commented that she really didn't know why North and South
Dakota were two separate states. Ironically, that was my comment more
than 50 years ago when I visited both states with a college buddy who
lived in Vermillion, South Dakota. There's nothing on which to
differentiate them.

She did have well-attended seminars for her presentations on opioids.
Damned drugs are a big problem everywhere.

I wonder why any two states (or more) bordering each other are separate states? Does that make me as
smart as your wife?

When you are talking about states like Maryland and Virginia, it is
because they hate each other.

Nonsense.

On 10/7/2018 3:26 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/7/18 3:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:



Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport
yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of
North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and
ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of
population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states
each to have two U.S. Senators.

So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one
man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but
not the Senate.

North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a
million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is
represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000
persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for
Vermont,
Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a
population of 40 million.

Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness
matters, states with less than a million people should only have one
U.S. Senator.


The answer to both you and your wife is because the Constitution calls
for two US Senators per state.Â* It says nothing about population of
those states in terms of number of Senators.

Think of it this way:Â* The country is called, "The United *States* of
America".Â* Each state is equal in rights regardless of population or
how backward you and other elitist would like to believe.


Yeah, we both understand the history. That doesn't make it fair to the
concept of one man/woman one vote, and it gives too much clout to the
empty states. But you Repubs love that. As for this being the "United"
states, no way, Jose.


It's not a "Republican" love or creation. It was written into the
Constitution long before there was even a Republican party. I am sure
at times when Dems are in control of the White House, House and Senate
they "love" it too.

One man/woman one vote certainly applies to how the House elections work.

On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 15:25:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 14:35:53 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 10/6/18 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/6/2018 8:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/6/18 7:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:


Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue.



Maybe by a few but once the final vote is taken today and Kavanaugh
is very likely confirmed most Dems will pull in their horns on this
and crank their gunsights onto a new subject .... like Trump's father's
tax returns from 60 years ago.

Mid terms are coming up, don'cha know?



Kavanaugh will always be known as "Beer Kavanaugh," or "Sex Offender
Kavanaugh," or, worse, "Trump's Boy Kavanaugh." At some point, he will
have to pay the piper.


Not directly related (to Kavanaugh) but I suppressed my gag reflexes
last night and watched Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC deliver a lecture
on the structure of our government with particular attention to the
Senate.* Citing his vast experience as an aide to Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan he criticized the founding fathers
as being "wrong" in the structure of government.* Much
like Hillary, he said the founding fathers assumed the general
population were too "stupid" to vote directly on the issues and there
fore created the representative form of government with the chosen
few ruling.



Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport
yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of
North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and
ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of
population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states
each to have two U.S. Senators.

So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one
man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but
not the Senate.

North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a
million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is
represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000
persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont,
Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a
population of 40 million.

Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness
matters, states with less than a million people should only have one
U.S. Senator.

My wife also commented that she really didn't know why North and South
Dakota were two separate states. Ironically, that was my comment more
than 50 years ago when I visited both states with a college buddy who
lived in Vermillion, South Dakota. There's nothing on which to
differentiate them.

She did have well-attended seminars for her presentations on opioids.
Damned drugs are a big problem everywhere.

I wonder why any two states (or more) bordering each other are separate states? Does that make me as
smart as your wife?

When you are talking about states like Maryland and Virginia, it is
because they hate each other. 70 years ago watermen were shooting at
each other arguing about fishing rights. After all the river does
belong to Maryland, up to the high water line on the Virginia shore.
I am not sure it is still true but when I left, Maryland, Virginia and
DC were the only 3 jurisdictions in the country that did not share
driver's license data. I was revoked in DC and Maryland never heard a
word. I knew people revoked in Virginia who just moved across the
bridge and got a Maryland license.

You failed to address the 'smartness' issue.

John H. Wrote in message:
On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 15:25:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 14:35:53 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 10/6/18 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/6/2018 8:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/6/18 7:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:


Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue.



Maybe by a few but once the final vote is taken today and Kavanaugh
is very likely confirmed most Dems will pull in their horns on this
and crank their gunsights onto a new subject .... like Trump's father's
tax returns from 60 years ago.

Mid terms are coming up, don'cha know?



Kavanaugh will always be known as "Beer Kavanaugh," or "Sex Offender
Kavanaugh," or, worse, "Trump's Boy Kavanaugh." At some point, he will
have to pay the piper.


Not directly related (to Kavanaugh) but I suppressed my gag reflexes
last night and watched Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC deliver a lecture
on the structure of our government with particular attention to the
Senate. Citing his vast experience as an aide to Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan he criticized the founding fathers
as being "wrong" in the structure of government. Much
like Hillary, he said the founding fathers assumed the general
population were too "stupid" to vote directly on the issues and there
fore created the representative form of government with the chosen
few ruling.



Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport
yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of
North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and
ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of
population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states
each to have two U.S. Senators.

So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one
man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but
not the Senate.

North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a
million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is
represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000
persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont,
Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a
population of 40 million.

Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness
matters, states with less than a million people should only have one
U.S. Senator.

My wife also commented that she really didn't know why North and South
Dakota were two separate states. Ironically, that was my comment more
than 50 years ago when I visited both states with a college buddy who
lived in Vermillion, South Dakota. There's nothing on which to
differentiate them.

She did have well-attended seminars for her presentations on opioids.
Damned drugs are a big problem everywhere.

I wonder why any two states (or more) bordering each other are separate states? Does that make me as
smart as your wife?

When you are talking about states like Maryland and Virginia, it is
because they hate each other. 70 years ago watermen were shooting at
each other arguing about fishing rights. After all the river does
belong to Maryland, up to the high water line on the Virginia shore.
I am not sure it is still true but when I left, Maryland, Virginia and
DC were the only 3 jurisdictions in the country that did not share
driver's license data. I was revoked in DC and Maryland never heard a
word. I knew people revoked in Virginia who just moved across the
bridge and got a Maryland license.

You failed to address the 'smartness' issue.


Maybe he doesn't know the answer?
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 15:28:12 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 10/7/18 3:25 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 14:35:53 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 10/6/18 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/6/2018 8:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/6/18 7:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:


Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue.



Maybe by a few but once the final vote is taken today and Kavanaugh
is very likely confirmed most Dems will pull in their horns on this
and crank their gunsights onto a new subject .... like Trump's father's
tax returns from 60 years ago.

Mid terms are coming up, don'cha know?



Kavanaugh will always be known as "Beer Kavanaugh," or "Sex Offender
Kavanaugh," or, worse, "Trump's Boy Kavanaugh." At some point, he will
have to pay the piper.


Not directly related (to Kavanaugh) but I suppressed my gag reflexes
last night and watched Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC deliver a lecture
on the structure of our government with particular attention to the
Senate.Â* Citing his vast experience as an aide to Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan he criticized the founding fathers
as being "wrong" in the structure of government.Â* Much
like Hillary, he said the founding fathers assumed the general
population were too "stupid" to vote directly on the issues and there
fore created the representative form of government with the chosen
few ruling.



Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport
yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of
North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and
ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of
population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states
each to have two U.S. Senators.

So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one
man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but
not the Senate.

North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a
million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is
represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000
persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont,
Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a
population of 40 million.

Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness
matters, states with less than a million people should only have one
U.S. Senator.

My wife also commented that she really didn't know why North and South
Dakota were two separate states. Ironically, that was my comment more
than 50 years ago when I visited both states with a college buddy who
lived in Vermillion, South Dakota. There's nothing on which to
differentiate them.

She did have well-attended seminars for her presentations on opioids.
Damned drugs are a big problem everywhere.

I wonder why any two states (or more) bordering each other are separate states? Does that make me as
smart as your wife?

When you are talking about states like Maryland and Virginia, it is
because they hate each other.

Nonsense.

How the **** would you know. You are a carpet bagger who has only been
there a few weeks. My family lived down the road from you in the 18th
century. Thrust me there has always been animosity and the war between
the states did not help.

On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 15:32:54 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/7/2018 3:26 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/7/18 3:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:



Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport
yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of
North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and
ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of
population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states
each to have two U.S. Senators.

So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one
man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but
not the Senate.

North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a
million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is
represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000
persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for
Vermont,
Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a
population of 40 million.

Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness
matters, states with less than a million people should only have one
U.S. Senator.


The answer to both you and your wife is because the Constitution calls
for two US Senators per state.Â* It says nothing about population of
those states in terms of number of Senators.

Think of it this way:Â* The country is called, "The United *States* of
America".Â* Each state is equal in rights regardless of population or
how backward you and other elitist would like to believe.


Yeah, we both understand the history. That doesn't make it fair to the
concept of one man/woman one vote, and it gives too much clout to the
empty states. But you Repubs love that. As for this being the "United"
states, no way, Jose.


It's not a "Republican" love or creation. It was written into the
Constitution long before there was even a Republican party. I am sure
at times when Dems are in control of the White House, House and Senate
they "love" it too.

One man/woman one vote certainly applies to how the House elections work.


The Senate originally was supposed to be an extension of the state
legislatures. In fact, until the 17th amendment the senators were not
even elected. The state legislature appointed them.

Section 3 (1). The Senate of the United States shall be composed of
two senators from each state, [chosen by the legislature thereof,] for
six years; and each senator shall have one vote.

It was not supposed to be a democratically elected seat at all, it was
supposed to be two representatives from the state legislature.
The house was the people's chamber and that is why they got the power
to tax, spend money, impeach officials and other things you really
wanted a consensus of the people for. The Senate was a check on that
power.
The Senate was the adult group in the room who ratified treaties,
tried the impeached and confirmed appointees.

On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 15:50:28 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 15:25:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 14:35:53 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 10/6/18 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/6/2018 8:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/6/18 7:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:


Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue.



Maybe by a few but once the final vote is taken today and Kavanaugh
is very likely confirmed most Dems will pull in their horns on this
and crank their gunsights onto a new subject .... like Trump's father's
tax returns from 60 years ago.

Mid terms are coming up, don'cha know?



Kavanaugh will always be known as "Beer Kavanaugh," or "Sex Offender
Kavanaugh," or, worse, "Trump's Boy Kavanaugh." At some point, he will
have to pay the piper.


Not directly related (to Kavanaugh) but I suppressed my gag reflexes
last night and watched Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC deliver a lecture
on the structure of our government with particular attention to the
Senate.Â* Citing his vast experience as an aide to Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan he criticized the founding fathers
as being "wrong" in the structure of government.Â* Much
like Hillary, he said the founding fathers assumed the general
population were too "stupid" to vote directly on the issues and there
fore created the representative form of government with the chosen
few ruling.



Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport
yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of
North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and
ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of
population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states
each to have two U.S. Senators.

So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one
man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but
not the Senate.

North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a
million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is
represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000
persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont,
Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a
population of 40 million.

Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness
matters, states with less than a million people should only have one
U.S. Senator.

My wife also commented that she really didn't know why North and South
Dakota were two separate states. Ironically, that was my comment more
than 50 years ago when I visited both states with a college buddy who
lived in Vermillion, South Dakota. There's nothing on which to
differentiate them.

She did have well-attended seminars for her presentations on opioids.
Damned drugs are a big problem everywhere.

I wonder why any two states (or more) bordering each other are separate states? Does that make me as
smart as your wife?

When you are talking about states like Maryland and Virginia, it is
because they hate each other. 70 years ago watermen were shooting at
each other arguing about fishing rights. After all the river does
belong to Maryland, up to the high water line on the Virginia shore.
I am not sure it is still true but when I left, Maryland, Virginia and
DC were the only 3 jurisdictions in the country that did not share
driver's license data. I was revoked in DC and Maryland never heard a
word. I knew people revoked in Virginia who just moved across the
bridge and got a Maryland license.

You failed to address the 'smartness' issue.
I always leave Harry's wife out of these things. She has enough
trouble in her life and she didn't sign up for this. ;-)