The reality of any situation is complex and multifaceted, with many factors at play. For instance, when China calculates its quarterly GDP numbers, it uses the so-called production account, which prioritizes the value-add of each industry and brushes aside end demand. As such, local officials can worry less about what households spend.

It is impossible to fabricate the entire reality of a situation, as there are too many variables and nuances to consider. If official statements and the actual reality diverge too significantly, it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore the discrepancy. The reality of any situation is always larger and more complex than one person or group can fully understand or control, however, It is important to consider all available information and remain open-minded. To not do so, to reject everything, is leaving yourself just as blind as those who freely accept it all.

I understand your criticism but I cant alter the data so that it fits someone elses perspective, that would be lying.

You’re leaving out a lot of context though. And given your hostile response to any criticism, it feels like you’re more focused on pushing a narrative than you are genuinely trying to explain allocations of representatives

It depends on the point your trying to make. Average isn’t always the best analytical metric.

Thats why I used the phrase "on average" to demonstrate the point.

Montana had one representative until this year, and now they have two. But they also have a larger population than Delaware, which would understandably mean they would get the seat first.

And yes, I get using averages, I’m not contesting that - but your assertion made it sound like the chart would move from large states to small states, when the dataset provided really showed it going from small states to large states to some medium ones and small again. West Virginia and Delaware and Idaho certainly don’t seem to be favored

[removed]

Thats why its better to use averages to demonstrate a point. And no -Montana doesn't have 'one representative'.

That doesn't make any sense, you're just trying to win the argument at this point lol

You present it as "you will eat fewer animals" which is true, and you let people decide for themselves if the ramifications of that is worth it to them and what it means.

What you don't do is present your data with a blatant lie in the title in order to push people's opinions to your own viewpoint

I'm a little confused. Delaware has 1.003 million people and one house representative, and Montana has 1.104 million people and...also has one house representative. How does Montana have 80% more representation when it has a larger population but the same number of representatives? I'm not saying you're incorrect, I just don't understand what context I am missing.

Another statement here that is throwing me off is the assertion "it favors the smallest states". While the most represented states are fairly small, the least represented states are also pretty small too: Delaware, Idaho, West Virginia, Utah, and Iowa. None of the *30* largest states are even in the bottom 5. In fact, if we look towards the middle of the chart, it appears that large states like California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, North Carolina, Texas, etc are right around the average. And in the "above average" column, we find Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, and South Carolina - all of which are in the top half of states by population save for Oregon (27th). It seems like being a small state might do you some favors, but being a small state might also mean you're at the bottom of the chart too. And if you're a large state, you'll probably be somewhere in the middle.

The animals aren't born. So you can't not eat what doesn't exist.

Is list making a sign of autism? I make tiered lists of my favorite movies and bands and scientists all the time lol I’m kind of obsessive over it

It's small, and the EU has a minimum number of seats a country gets (six).

Again, comparing it to Germany's "1 for every 866,198":

• Luxembourg gets 1 for every 105,788
• Cyprus gets 1 for every 149,335
• Estonia gets 1 for every 190,010
• Slovenia gets 1 for every 233,622

so on so forth

Uh, how so?

Thats very undemocratic. What is so special about Malta?

Yeah, my post showed how it's even crazier in Europe.

For example, Malta gets one representative for every 86,017 people, whereas Germany gets one representative for every 866,198 people. So, effectively, a person from Malta has 10x the voting power as someone from Germany.

In your scenario, if Congress expanded to match the representation Montana gets, it would be expanding from 435 seats to 610.

If the EU expanded to match the representation Malta gets, it would be expanding from 750 seats to 5,197.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I'd also like to note that from 2012-2022, Montana was the state with the least amount of representation. It switched from "least" to "most" by picking up a seat following the 2020 census.

Yes its interesting considering that states get to choose their own congressional districts, effectively letting the states 'pick' who they will send to congress. The US House is much closer to a 2nd Senate than representative of 'the people'.

If im from Delaware for example, Im very mad about that.

A few months back, I made this post comparing this phenomenon to how it is in the EU Parliament.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/118th_United_States_Congress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_census

TOOL: CANVA.COM

Wish I could retweet

Or perhaps they were just implying a spoiler...

Homosexuals are almost as unaccepted as unmarried hetero sex. That's surprising for me.

I am totally going to steal this one.

Marriage affair and animal fur stayed pretty consistent

The rich and the politicians that lick their boots.