major problem with california cities is they are too popular, so they are crowded as fuck

and also have major city management problems

San Diego for instance is one of the areas with a large population of homeless people

@Sh0t the House ratio, is based on population

You are talking about the house right?

I just got back

the apportionment is

san diego has lots of homeless because it's a very homeless friendly city, the weather is good to live outdoors

i went from san diego to west palm florida, same problem

San Diego gay

you can be from anywhere in the us and end up homeless in san diego, since we dont have intra-national border control

The homeless population there has lead to a large poo clean up problem too

which is remarkable honestly

that's in san fran, which is a much more concentrated city

No it's also in San Diego

Pretty sure, it might be another poo related problem though instead of lurking on the streets

San Diego lets peolpe live in their cars and the water system doesn't 'run' fast, so it backs up adn you get issues with that

Like the recent hep c issue they had 2 years ago

we had something similar in 06

The river poo problem was from 2017 though so that could be cleaned up now, can't say

The street shit stuff in San Fran is fucking nuts though, that's just extremely poor city management to have a sanitation problem like that of that scale

jesus

the urbanity is low-ish, but San Diego is easily one of the best cities on planet earth

San Fran too

there is a reason why they are popular

I wouldn't go that far personally besides the problems, but San Diego does have an great safari park

```While much of the cross-national disparity in representation ratios can be explained by the big population of the U.S. (with more than 325 million people it’s the largest country in the OECD), that’s not the only reason. Eight OECD countries have larger lower chambers than the U.S. House, with Germany’s Bundestag topping the league table with 709 members. The British House of Commons has 650 MPs (Members of Parliament); Italy’s Chamber of Deputies has 630 lawmakers.```

just so counterintuitive

Idk why people are in such deep denial about California

Reminds me of people who watch Russian news and think that the US is a terrible place to live

Where bad things happen all the time

I asked Ann Coulter once in person why does she shit on cali but keeps living there

pretty common for many of those pundits if you notice

Wait you mean the Cuckservative inc.

i think it's tied to the same propaganda that lets people in heavily subsidized state yell at 'high tax liberal states' that pay the lion's share of taxes

No fucking shit, those people love their Israel money 😂

But California is shit

i suppose it could be blatant hypocracy but i dont think they can put the two ideas together to realize it

California is like hell on earth

Yes it is a bit counter-intuitive here because these countries are not just like the United States so direct comparisons don't quite work; the United States has a giant population, about 6 times that of Britain's. So if the current representative count is increased by *3 times its current size of 435 voting members* in an effort to become more proportional to the population, then this will likely cause even greater gridlock than before in our current system which isn't good if you're wanting more work to get done. Now I do actually agree that ideally it would be good if there were more representatives to spread out, and sure you could increase the amount relatively marginally or even by 1-2 hundred possibly, but multiplying it by 3 is way too much. This will not reduce the risk of corruption or lobbying either; if anything it'll become even worse. And besides, the Representatives can just hire their own staff to effectively divide the amount of people that they are reaching out to. That being said, an increase in the Representative amount *could* allow for both more representation of the public and largely prevent gridlock if the organization of the entire House was reorganized to accommodate the increase, and if the government was less polarized or if there weren't any formal parties, but probably not with it's current state.

Britain has more reps in total, with a smaller population. That is the 'counterintuitive' position, you are using that word backwards