Plan B Forum

California is a population colossus. Even many Americans do not appreciate what a population behemoth California really is.

(This posting is about population, so all references to relative sizes are references to relative populations. For the populations of the U.S. and its subdivisions, I am using the Census Bureau’s 2011 estimates for the sake of consistency. For the populations of other countries, I am using Wikipedia’s list of countries by population.)
California’s population is 37,691,912.
Some comparisons for our non-US friends:

California is slightly larger than Canada and slightly smaller than Argentina. If California were an independent nation, it would rank thirty-fifth among what would be two-hundred forty-three nations.

California is just over 1-3/10 times the size of Venezuela, almost 1-2/3 times the size of Australia, and just shy of 2-1/4 times the size of the Netherlands. California is a bit more than 3-1/3 times the size of Cuba and of Belgium and almost 4 times the size of Sweden. California is almost 4-3/4 times the size of Israel, almost 6-3/4 times the size of Denmark, and almost 8-1/2 times the size of New Zealand.

California is just shy of 3/10 the size of Japan, just shy of 1/3 the size of Mexico, almost 1/2 the size of Germany, and just shy of 1/2 the size of Turkey. California is more than 1/2 the size of France and of the United Kingdom. California is more than 6/10 the size of Italy, almost 3/4 the size of South Africa, and just over 8/10 the size of Spain.

(Canada: 107.7%, Argentina: 93.9%, Venezuela: 130.2%, Australia: 164.5%, Netherlands: 224.7%, Cuba: 337.6%, Belgium: 338.4%, Sweden: 394.4%, Israel: 472.3%, Denmark: 672.7%, New Zealand: 845.6%, Japan: 29.6%, Mexico: 32.2%, Germany: 46.0%, Turkey: 49.8%, France: 57.4%, United Kingdom: 59.6%, Italy: 61.9%, South Africa: 72.8%, Spain: 80.5%.)
Compared to the sizes of other States, the size of California is astonishing:

Take all the people of Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawai’i, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. California has more people than all those twenty-one States combined.

The second most populous State is Texas. Take all the people of Alaska, Delaware, Hawai’i, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. Pour all those people into Texas. California would still be larger than Texas.

Or, for the sake of simplicity, just take the people of Ohio – one of the handful of States with populations greater than 10 million – and pour them into Texas instead. California would still be larger than Texas.

Texas is barely more than 2/3 (68.1%) the size of California. But that makes Texas itself an outlier: The next two most populous States, New York and Florida, are barely more than 1/2 (51.6% and 50.6%) the size of California. And only Texas, New York, and Florida are more than 1/2 the size of California.

92% of the States (46 of 50) are less than 1/2 the size of California.

88% of the States (44 of 50) are less than 1/3 the size of California. Of the forty-six States which are less than 1/2 the size of California, only two, Illinois and Pennsylvania, are more than 1/3 (34.1% and 33.8%) the size of California.

80% of the States (40 of 50) are less than 1/4 the size of California. Of the forty-four States which are less than 1/3 the size of California, only four are more than 1/4 the size of California: Ohio (30.6%), Michigan (26.2%), Georgia (26.0%), and North Carolina (25.62%).

And so it goes: Thirty-eight States are less than 1/5 the size of California, thirty-three States are less than 1/6 the size of California, and thirty States are less than 1/7 the size of California.

Which brings us to an amazing figure: More than 1/2 of the States – 27 (54%) – are less than 1/8 the size of California.

Ponder that for a moment. More than half the States are, compared to California, population pipsqueaks.

And the pipsqueakism does not end there: Almost 1/2 of the States – 22 (44%) – are less than 1/10 the size of California. More than 1/4 of the States – 14 (28%) – are less than 1/20 the size of California. Eight States (16%) are less than 1/30 the size of California, six States (12%) are less than 1/40 the size of California, and four States (8%) are less than 1/60 the size of California.

And Wyoming is less than 1/66 the size of California.
Question: What do the following cities have in common?

New York NY, Los Angeles CA, Chicago IL, Houston TX, Philadelphia PA, Phoenix AZ, San Antonio TX, San Diego CA, Dallas TX, San Jose CA, Jacksonville FL, Indianapolis IN, Austin TX, San Francisco CA, Columbus OH, Fort Worth TX, Charlotte NC, Detroit MI, El Paso TX, Memphis TN, Boston MA, Seattle WA, Denver CO, Baltimore MD, Washington DC, Nashville TN, Louisville KY, Milwaukee WI, Portland OR, Oklahoma City OK, and Las Vegas NV.

Answer: Every single one of those thirty-one cities has more people than the entire State of Wyoming. Each of four California cities has more people than the entire State of Wyoming.
Of course, not all States are population pipsqueaks. Besides California and Texas, five States have populations greater than 10 million: New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

California is bigger than Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio combined. Yes, California is bigger than the fifth, sixth, and seventh biggest States combined.

California is also bigger than every pair of those five States except New York and Florida. California is bigger than Florida + Ohio, New York + Ohio, Florida + Pennsylvania, Florida + Illinois, New York + Pennsylvania, and New York + Illinois.
Now set aside State-to-State comparisons. Consider instead how California’s subdivisions compare to other whole States.

But first, a three-way county-to-county comparison: Los Angeles County (which includes but is much larger than the city of Los Angeles) is the giant among counties. Not just the giant among California counties; the giant among counties all across the U.S. The second biggest county in the U.S. is Cook County, Illinois, home of Chicago, the biggest city in Illinois. The third biggest county in the U.S. is Harris County, Texas, home of Houston, the biggest city in Texas.

Los Angeles County is bigger than Cook County and Harris County combined.

Question: What do the following States have in common?

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawai’i, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Answer: Los Angeles County is bigger than every single one of them. Yes, forty-two States (84%) are smaller than a single California county. The only seven States (except, of course, California) bigger than Los Angeles County are Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.

And there is also this: Los Angeles County is bigger than Alaska, Delaware, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming combined. Yes, ten States – the ten smallest States, but still ten States – combined are smaller than a single California county.

And Los Angeles County is bigger than New Jersey, which ranks eleven among the fifty States, plus any of the six smallest States.

Sure, Los Angeles County is the 600-pound gorilla in the county room. But California’s other big counties are still really, really big:

--> San Diego County is bigger than twenty-one States.
--> Orange County is bigger than twenty States.
--> Riverside County is bigger than fifteen States.
--> San Bernardino County is bigger than fourteen States.
--> Santa Clara County is bigger than twelve States.
--> Alameda County is bigger than eleven States.
--> Sacramento County is bigger than eleven States.
--> Contra Costa County is bigger than seven States.
--> Fresno County is bigger than six States.
--> Kern County is bigger than five States.
--> Ventura County is bigger than five States.
--> San Francisco County is bigger than four States.
--> San Mateo County is bigger than four States.
--> San Joaquin County is bigger than three States.
California is absurdly large. By itself, it would rank thirty-fifth among two-hundred forty-three nations. California is larger than all twenty-one of the smallest of the fifty States combined. Only one other State is even 2/3 the size of California, only three other States are even 1/2 the size of California, and more than half of the fifty States are less than 1/8 the size of California. One of California’s counties is larger than forty-two of the fifty States. Three of California’s counties are larger than 2/5 of the States, eight of California’s counties are larger than 1/5 of the States, and fifteen of California’s counties are larger than at least three States. In addition to fifteen of California’s counties, four of California’s cities are larger than the smallest State.

The situation is ludicrous. No sane person, if he or she were looking at the present circumstances and seeking to create a representative government would say:

“Let’s give a place with a population of 568,158 two Senators. And let’s cram fifteen counties with a combined population of 31,024,205 into a single State. And let’s cram another 6,667,707 into that State too. And let’s give all 37,691,912 of those people the same two Senators we give to 568,158 other people. Let’s give one group of people more than sixty-six times the representation in the Senate that we give the other group of people. Yeah, that makes sense.”

Given the self-evident irrationality of California’s position as a single State within the U.S., the question becomes what to do about it. That will be the subject of a future posting.

The California congressional delegation needs to learn how to abandon partisanship and vote en bloc for the interests of the State. We are still paying $40,000,000,000 per year to subsidize the low-functioning states.


yrs,
rubato

They should change the term "size" to the term "population". As I read the OP, I kept thinking size = land area which was not the case.

And afer all that, I kept thinking of Manhattan.

I believe "They" is Andrew. Since his point is regarding the population of California relative to other places and its relatively small amount of political representation in Washington, the physical size comparison of California vs other places is irrelevant.

I'm looking forward to his solution.

I agree with Andrew.

The Dolwig Amenment would've solved this problem 40+ years ago.

And afer all that, I kept thinking of Manhattan.

I think I'll have a Manhatta, bottoms up!

Someone has proposed a new map that divides the U.S. into 50 states of equal population:



The problem I see is that to maintain it as such, state boundaries would have to be revised after every census, which would be unworkable.

They (we) rework voting districts all the time.

They jerry mander down here...

keld feldspar wrote:They jerry mander down here...

We have an ongoing gerrymandering since the census here on Long Island. It's in Nassau county and I'm in Suffolk county so I have not been paying much attention to it.

The former Speaker of the House in Massachusetts went to the can for that. (Actually, he went to prison for lying about it under oath.)

Except for the part where he didn't go to jail at all.

oldr_n_wsr wrote:They (we) rework voting districts all the time.

Except telling people who live in one state at present that they will be living in another state next month because the boundary changes, and that the boundary might bounce back to where it was ten years from now, is rather more significant that shifting boundaries between electoral districts within a state. People will suddenly be subject to an entirely different code of law. Those licensed to drive in one state will have to get new driver's licences for their new state. Schools subject to the jurisdiction of one state's department of education will suddenly be reporting to another state's department of education. And so on. Subject to change every ten years. It would be madness.

People will suddenly be subject to an entirely different code of law. Those licensed to drive in one state will have to get new driver's licences for their new state. Schools subject to the jurisdiction of one state's department of education will suddenly be reporting to another state's department of education. And so on. Subject to change every ten years. It would be madness.

Exactly...

And I really doubt that there are many Texans who would care to live in "Big Thicket" or many New Jerseyites that would like to live in "Pocono"....

The states as they exist came about for specific historical reasons; they have real histories and structures; trying to overlay some sort of artificial "rationality" on them is silly. (And a complete academic exercise anyway. since you would never get the kind of support you would need to accomplish it .)

Also, while the Founding Fathers might not have envisioned precisely the dimensions of population differences between the states, they certainly envisioned that there would be substantial population differences, (since they existed at the time of the Constitution's adoption) and the Senate was created specifically for the purpose of providing representation in one house of the bicameral legislature, that would place each state on an equal voting footing, without regard to their relative population size. That's the whole reason it exists. (In fact without this, it is unlikely that a number of the original states would even have joined The Union)

The purpose was (and is) to provide a check in the form of a body representative of the "states" as opposed to simple populations per se... (this is why originally Senators weren't even elected directly by the people of their respective states, but instead chosen by their state legislators) The Senate is a fundamental pillar of our federal republican system of government. It is designed to stand as a bulwark against unbridled majoritarianism; it's not supposed to help enable it.

Now, if one prefers to have a system where nothing stands in the way of sheer numbers, and where the states play no role as actual entities of interest, one could certainly design a system like that...

But it is not our system,and it is not what our system was ever intended to be.

Except that the Founders also would never have intended that representation in the House of Representatives (that was supposed to provide rep by pop) would become as distorted as it is today, due to the completely artificial limit of 435 that has been imposed on it.

I don't think California is too big, its just got big bones!

yrs,
rubato

Guinevere wrote:Except for the part where he didn't go to jail at all.

Whoops...you're right, Tom Finneran got a sweetheart deal and avoided prison. it was the NEXT Speaker (Sal DiMasi) that went to the can. That makes THREE consecutive speakers bounced out of office for being crooks. (Finneran's predecessor, "Good-Time Charlie" Flaherty, committed felony tax evasion.)

It's almost like there is a culture of corruption on Beacon Hill!

Corruption of a public official should be punished with death by public beheading. Make examples out of a few thousand and maybe the rest will smarten up.

Who do those Assembly speakers think they are? Illinois governors?

Touché!

Also:

rubato wrote:I don't think California is too big, its just got big bones!

....................

I have not suggested and am not suggesting that the U.S. rearrange its State borders after every census. It bears noting, however, that this:

Lord Jim wrote:The states as they exist came about for specific historical reasons; they have real histories and structures; trying to overlay some sort of artificial "rationality" on them is silly.

is, in numerous instances, counter-factual.

Actually, in quite a few cases, the very opposite is true. Various State borders are where they are precisely because of the imposition of "some sort of artificial 'rationality' on them".

For example, Colorado and Wyoming are perfect and identical rectangles on the surface of the spherical Earth. From north to south, Colorado spans exactly 4˚ of latitude, and so does Wyoming. (37˚ - 41˚ N and 41˚ - 45˚ N.) From east to west, Colorado spans exactly 7˚ of longitude, and so does Wyoming. (102˚ - 109˚ W and 104˚ 3' - 111˚ 3' W.)

From east to west, North Dakota spans exactly 7˚ of longitude (97˚ - 104˚ W) – exactly the same longitudinal span as Wyoming and Colorado. From east to west, Idaho spans exactly 6˚ of longitude, and so does Nevada, and so does New Mexico. (111˚ - 117˚ W, 114˚ - 120˚ W, and 103˚ - 109˚ W.) From east to west, Montana spans exactly 12˚ of longitude. (104˚ 2’ - 116˚ 2’.)

From north to south, Idaho spans exactly 7˚ of latitude, and so does Nevada. (42˚ - 49˚ N and 35˚ - 42˚ N.) From north to south, Oregon and Washington, taken together, also span exactly 7˚ of latitude. (42˚ - 42˚ N.) From north to south, Kansas spans exactly 3˚ of latitude, and so does Nebraska. (37˚ - 40˚ N and 40˚ - 43˚ N.) From north to south, Utah spans exactly 5˚ of latitude. (37˚ - 42˚ N.) And other than its slight bulge (0˚ 34’) in its southwestern corner, Montana would span, as most of it does, from north to south, exactly 4˚ of latitude. (45˚ - 49˚ N.)

And look how many of those of figures are exact whole numbers (e.g., 37˚ rather than 37˚ 28’ 46”): Of the 32 figures above, 28 (87.5%) are exact whole numbers.

In essence, Congress laid a grid over the territory that now comprises the 12 States above and, with the occasional nod to natural features and political considerations, carved up that territory in accordance with that grid. What is "silly" is to deny the arbitrariness which, although it does not completely explain why the States' borders are what they are, lies within the core of why the States' borders are what they are.