What would happen, I mean, hypothetically, if a politician was given airtime in the media based upon how much land mass the politician represents?

This is, of course, a silly proposition. But let’s play it through for a moment and see if it has any merit.

Let’s suppose, for argument’s sake, that this was true. It would mean that a Senator from Alaska would be given much more airtime than a Senator from Rhode Island.  But would that be so bad? When was the last time you heard much of the thoughts of an Alaskan Senator? Alaska has more than just pristine wilderness and abundant wildlife to contribute to the country.

What about in the House of Representatives?

This would be a boon for the congress person in South Dakota. Does anyone – even a resident from South Dakota – even know who that is? When was the last time a congress person from South Dakota was on CNN or in the headlines on Fox News?

It seems dreadfully unfair, doesn’t it?  Dusty Johnson was just elected to that position. But do we know what Dusty Johnson stands for? Huffington Post, have you even asked? He represents a large mass of land.

On the flip side, and this is perhaps where this modest proposal begins to take shape the most, some congressional districts are very small, tiny even, and so those representatives would only have a tiny say in media discourse under this proposal.

Let’s look at a case study. Let’s use, hmmm, how about Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, now commonly referred to as AOC, the newly elected representative from New York’s 14th Congressional District.

If we do a little math, we would learn that AOC represents approximately 0.00001 percent of the land mass of the United States. Therefore, under this most humble of proposals, she would be entitled to 0.00001 percent of media time, which would be approximately 5 minutes for the year 2019.

Perhaps this proposal does have some merit after all.