South Dakota's population is one quarter of one percent of US population.

[Jara sang]

South Dakota: 754,844 population
United States: 288,368,698 population

I say we petition Congress to nullify their state constitution, strip them of their Senate seats and only allow them to have a non-voting observer in the House. They've only got one representative-at-large in the House anyway.

[wiley]

1. Give their Senate seats to DC!

[Trillo]

2. How about "Virtual States" not defined by geographic boundary,

but instead, voluntary membership in a State that resonates with one's own beliefs? For example, a citizen 'residing' in California citizenship might live in an apartment next to another citizen who has chosen to 'reside' under the laws of New York. The beauty of this vitual geography would be that citizens could choose the State's constitution and laws they live under and would vow to follow and be subject to those laws, regardless of where they were born or the need to move.

Now that I'm done dreaming ... I realize this won't work simply because their objective is not to control their own behavior as much as it is to control others' behavior.

[Old and In the Way]

9. Interesting idea.

Of course, it would be rather impossible to operate a 'physical state' if the population chose to abide by the laws of 49 other states. But politically speaking, it would be interesting. Probably would have 95% of the people living in California or Texas, politically-wise.

[kevinbgoode]

3. Return them to territory status

and place the state under federal supervision with a weak territorial government.

[arcos]

4. The Republicans would demand the same be done to Vermont...

:P

[expatriot]

5. I've always wanted to draw up a map with in which the Senate was

"redistricted" to be representativ. Although I have never gotten around to it. Each Senator would represent 2.9 million Americans. California would get 13 Senators or so while South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wymonig, and Idaho would only get one betweeen all of them.

[ReaderSushi]

6. Essentially the House with fewer members.

Or are you suggesting we move to a unicameral legislature?

[Solon]

8. Actually, that would probably be a pretty bad idea...

An easier thing to implement, considering it is Constitutional is to set up a Proportional Representation system for the House. The House is limited to 335 members by congressional law in 1911. The 1:2.9 million ratio the above poster mentioned actually isn't that far off the mark nowadays for Representation, and as the population increases, the ratio widens. A more fair representation would be to have "At large" elections within each state, either through party lists or candidate lists, doesn't really matter. Anyways, the 335 limit will be abolished, the House instead is apportioned using a fixed Ratio, like 1 Representative for every 100,000 people or so(Constitution Requires at least 1:30,000). This would increase the amount of Representative from both small population and large population states. Another suggestion, which I kinda thought up of is for the District of Columbia, which has no representation, and also the Unincorporated Territories of the United States(Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, etc.) is that they could be given voting representation in the House of Reps at the same ratio, but not be given Senators(they represent STATES after all). This would require a Constitutional Amendment though, and also includes voting for President in elections. Puerto Rico wouldn't need to lose its self-governance with such a relationship, neither any of the other territories, but they would also be given voting representation in the House, instead of just observers.

[sam sarrha]

7. nothing to do there but hunt and F*ck, ..the hunt'n no good in the winter,