Wyoming would still have a state legislature - I am not sure I see your point.
If you are saying that each person in Wyoming would have 1 vote towards the presidency and each person in California would have 1 vote towards the presidency, then I agree.
>>Wyoming would still have a state legislature - I am not sure I see your point.
It means that California would have more influence at the federal level than it does now. And since federal laws apply to all states it means that indirectly California would have more influence on Wyoming.
so? California has more people - it should have influence proportional to it's population - remember that in most states (except for Wyoming) electoral college votes are dominated by house seats (which are proportional to population).
If you want the US to stay whole, that's a big problem. Technically states can secede, or form a separate union if they so desire. That's also why Senate representation is _NOT_ proportional to population. I suspect that'd be the next thing to be dismantled if whoever is pushing this actually succeeds.
> Technically states can secede, mlor form a separate union if they so desire.
Technically, they can't. There is no provision for secession in the US Constitution.
Practically, well, the one notable attempt didn't work out, so not that, either.
> That's also why Senate representation is _NOT_ proportional to population. I suspect that'd be the next thing to be dismantled if whoever is pushing this actually succeeds.
Well, you can't do that through coordinated state action.
Or even a Constitutional amendment. Maybe two amendments, because the provision prohibiting amendments which alter the equal representation in the Senate isn't itself explicitly protected the same way. Of course, small states can easily block a Constitutional amendment, so that's not going to happen unless they are on board.
>There is no provision for secession in the US Constitution.
Yes, but Article I of the UN Charter expressly provides for the right of Self-Determination.
>Practically, well, the one notable attempt didn't work out, so not that, either.
Yes, that resulted in more American deaths than all other US wars combined. However, notably that was also before the UN. Moreover, not only does the UN provide for a right of Self-Determination it also restricts the right for any nation to use force (i.e. armed conflict, Article 2(4)). If a group of people with a well defined territory peacefully secedes, and armed conflict and use of force is implemented to prevent the secession that would violate the UN Charter, use of force and laws of armed conflict.
Obviously one of the best examples case studies of applying international laws and norms to the real world is Palestine, which is recognized by the UN and 193 member nations as an independent State, but Israel does not. Obviously its not as easy as Palestine simply secedes through a democratic vote, as there are all kinds of claims from both sides regarding land disputes, use of force and laws of armed conflict. Still international recognition of Palestine as an independent State is a giant mile stone in the process.
> There's no provision forbidding secession either
The Article IV Sec. 4 guarantee cannot be interpret as even coherent if a state can secede; once a state is admitted to the union, he federal government is irrevocably obligated to preserve it as a subject and republican government; if a state government could escape this oversight by secession, the guarantee would be empty.
Further, there is ample historical evidence that the idea of reserving the right to secede when ratifying was raised by New York, and rejected because it was understood that it would be viewed by the Congress as an inconsistent condition attached to ratification and thereby nullify the ratificstion.
The Supreme Court has also ruled on the issue, in Texas v. White. So your concept of a right to secession is inconsistent with the text, historical evidence of intent and case law of the Constitution.
The point is, Wyoming and many other less populated states, would then have very, very limited say in who becomes the head of the executive branch, and therefore holds the veto power over whatever the legislative branch is able to put together whenever they feel like actually doing any work. That's the whole idea: no matter how sparsely populated, each state has at least _some_ say when electing the dude (or dudette) who runs the country, and that say is deliberately disproportionate to its population. Were it up to me, I'd let the smaller states have a larger number of representatives as well. E pluribus unum and all that.
That's how democracy works. If a region wants more say, they should have more people.
No one complains that Lost Springs (population 4) has a "very, very limited say in who becomes the head of the executive branch" of Wyoming. It's same really. It's just lines on a map, nothing to do with state or national identity.
If you are saying that each person in Wyoming would have 1 vote towards the presidency and each person in California would have 1 vote towards the presidency, then I agree.