A Wyoming senator has 67 times more voting power per constituent than a California senator.

[Towlie]

Senators representing sparsely populated states wield much more voting power in proportion to the sizes of their constituencies than senators representing heavily populated states. This means that, for example, a vote to choose a senator carries more than 67 times more weight for a Wyoming resident than it does for a California resident. A system like this makes no sense for a body making decisions that affect the entire nation.

Here's a system that I submit would be much more fair and consistent with the "power to the people" principle:

Each state shall be represented by two U.S. senators with 6-year terms, as they currently are.

One of those senators shall represent the Democratic Party and the other shall represent the Republican Party.

The senators shall be chosen during each state's primary election by voters registered to their respective parties.

In the general election, voters will not "vote" for a senator but will instead assign their personal voting proxy for senate decisions to one of their state's two senators.

When votes in the Senate are taken, senators will each cast a number of votes in proportion to the number of voting proxies that were awarded to them during the general election.

For example, using recent population estimates and a total number of votes normalized to one million, the two California senators would have 120,636 votes split between them, while the two Wyoming senators would have 1,767 votes split between them. Under this system, each individual vote cast would be representative of an equal portion of the nation's population.

Sound fair?

[servermsh]

1. And it is getting worse and worse due to population changes. Norm Ornstein writes a lot about this.

It will be even worse in 20 years.

[rickyhall]

2. Or 1 senator for every 3 million people.

[wackadoo wabbit]

32. This makes a lot of sense

I hadn't seen this suggestion before, but I really like it.

[spooky3]

3. I wish we could change this but the system is rigged. Nt

[hack89]

4. Sounds like a recipe for gridlock

Resulting in down the middle moderate laws. No progressive legislation will ever pass as power will reside in the hands of moderate Dems and Repukes that control the political middle ground.

[Mme. Defarge]

5. This is why

we can’t have nice things.

[Hav]

6. The electoral college needs to go

but although I cannot remember the specifics anymore, I think I saw some good arguments for why every state has 2 Senators. Smaller states can have different interests than the large ones and in theory, the Senate is the place where each state has the same weight.

[Pantagruel]

7. Essentially

both the Electoral College and bi-cameral legislators (Senate/House split) were constructed to preserve slaveholders interests. Their time has come and gone in the modern world.

[TigressDem]

18. TRUE it did begin to protect the wealthy and some of those owned slaves... BUT

In 1913 the Senate has to be chosen by The People. THEY ARE STILL beholden to the voters, so WE are their bosses.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/legal-and-political-magazines/legislative-executive-checks-and-balances

Under the Constitution of 1787, representatives were chosen by Americans with voting rights, while senators were chosen by state legislatures. This was supposed to give the chambers different compositions. The House would represent free Americans, and the Senate would represent the states. Under the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, however, the Constitution changed to provide for popular election of senators, too. Some political scientists believe this weakened the checks and balances between the two chambers, since they both came to be elected the same way, by the people of America.



BETTER TO FOCUS ON - GET RID OF CITIZENS UNITED

A worse threat to Democracy is ALLOWING CORPORATIONS and their MONEY to "be" seen as "people" instead of special interests.


ELECTION REFORM should make all candidates have to stump or reach out directly and NOT make these fake ass commercials.

They should have to debate on Public Television and every thing should be done so that a GOOD candidate doesn't have to whore themselves out for money to win a place.


GET BIG MONEY OUT OF THE ELECTIONS.


KEEP the check and balances.


IMHO

[Pantagruel]

22. Senate is probably superfluous

Representation by population can be done in the House with current Senate duties performed by a House committee. All IMHO.

[TigressDem]

24. NO it is checks and balances.

EVEN if it began to protect wealthy people from MOB mentality, it still works.

THINK.

Population. Popular.

WHAT EVERYONE thinks is a great idea at the moment.

Calmer, cooler heads prevailing because there needs to be agreement.

IT'S STILL a good system.

We just have to get rid of the vermin shitting on the Constitution and the rich backers pushing them to do it.

GET BIG MONEY OUT OF POLITICS.

CAN Citizen's United.


PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE.

CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE.

IMHO

[Pantagruel]

38. Reverse Citz. United

and the Senate will work better but it still gives too much power to small states.

[TigressDem]

40. They have 1/50th power in Senate. Same as every other state.

IF you go by population in BOTH House and Senate, then the ONLY States that really have power are:

California
Texas
Florida
New York
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Ohio
Georgia
North Carolina
Michigan
New Jersey
Virginia
Washington

Every other state is below 10 reps by population. So THESE 13 States above will have ALL the power.

BUT IF YOU LEAVE IT AS IS in regards to 2 Senators per "State" but get the Territories in and give them VOTING power, we get a better advantage. Right now they have 1 member, but no vote.

Puerto Rico
DC
Guam
US Virgin Islands
American Samoa
Northern Marina Islands


https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population

[Pantagruel]

45. Now virtually impossible

to get 2 new states approved and you want SIX??

[Demovictory9]

34. we don't equal representation by any measure

[Mme. Defarge]

8. This is why

our allies are losing confidence in our reliability as a nation that be counted on to defend our mutual interests. While the majority of American voters can usually be counted on to vote for the most capable and ethical candidate for president, they are too often trumped by the EC results.

[stopdiggin]

17. Mmmm. I'd say that the confidence in the "majority of Americans voters"

(or the "majority" of voters in many current democratic systems) -- is coming into serious question. And some of our "allies" are blundering about just as much as we are -- serving to illustrate that the EC (while undeniably an anachronism) is not the root cause of the problem.

[Mme. Defarge]

19. C'est vrai,

hélas.

[TigressDem]

23. We have 4 years to win their confidence back.

THINK back to when Obama took office.

I can remember the COLLECTIVE Sigh of RELIEF in our Allies talking points.

GW set the Middle East on fire and Obama came in calm and talking like a real leader to other leaders.

tRump has been disrespectful to everyone.

Joe has his faults, but he will be a straight forward leader negotiating for US in good faith and listening to the other side to see what can be done to make it work both ways.

HE HAS THE MOST EXPERIENCE OF ANY PRESIDENT because he has been there and done A LOT of THAT.

WE HAVE TO SHOW SUPPORT AND FIND WAYS TO GET THINGS DONE THAT MAKE US LOOK GOOD AGAIN.

The big orange shit stain has left the building, but cleanup on isle 45 continues.

[stopdiggin]

25. quite clearly DJT was a (historic) stain on this country's

honor, integrity and credibility. I contend that the fault for that tragic occurrence belongs at least as much to the "American voter" -- as it does to political system under which it happened (i.e., the EC).

(I make the same argument about the UK and Brexit -- with of course separate drivers, scope and consequence)

[TigressDem]

26. WELL, WE DO have to really BE more than VOTERS. Hard to think of the best way, sometimes.

I work 6 days a week and I can't see straight half the time.

I feel so much better with the adults in charge, but then at the back of my mind, what can I do?


Have to look into movement to overturn Citizens United, I think.

It's a big reason people like tRump get away with the crap they do.

[TigressDem]

20. LETTING a Tyrant become pRes or a Doofus who can't put full sentences together shreds confidence.

SO because we know the groups of White Supremacists and other radical hate groups that seek to win by any means, WE designate them as Domestic Terrorists.

ANYONE who will KILL to get their candidate elected is a threat to Democracy.

THIS section of voters needs to get their bells rung big time.

Back an insurrection and YOU LOSE, your candidate LOSES but DEMOCRACY carries on without you and your ilk.

AND we keep track of HOW MUCH BIDEN is DOING FOR THE COUNTRY and in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 WE KEEP BRINGING IT UP.

COMPARE THAT to their DO NOTHING group and CHANGE the conversation to WHAT IS GOOD FOR AMERICA is GOOD for the People.

Get the Pandemic under control.

Get America prosperous again, but not just the top 1% - WE NEED A MIDDLE CLASS AGAIN.

Public works projects, solar, wind, thermal to make the cost of living go DOWN so people can exist without having to spend all their money to keep lights and heat on.

YES FIGHT FOR EVERY DAMN VOTE, but now that we have the Majority we gotta hit the ground running and TALK BACK TO THE INSANE until they see the light. IF THEY NEVER DO, so what. BUT OUR VOICES MUST KEEP SPEAKING THE TRUTH and NEVER let the stupidity of "truthiness" replace FACTS.

DR FAUCI IS FREE. FREE AT LAST.

NOW LET'S FREE up the rest who have been tied down by the LIAR in Chief who was the WORST pRES EVER.

I thought Andrew Jackson would have that title forever. WELL guess who tRump modeled himself after? Figures.

Prevailing thread through every account, Andrew Jackson was a self-serving man who didn't treat people as people if they were black or red.

UNVARNISHED TRUTH
https://www.vox.com/2016/4/20/11469514/andrew-jackson-indian-removal

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
https://www.history.com/news/andrew-jackson-presidency-controversial-legacy


WHITE WASHED VERSION from 2017
https://time.com/4649081/andrew-jackson-donald-trump-portrait/



BIDEN replaced it with BEN FRANKLIN.

The Oval Office smells better already.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

9. No.

Why should I have to register with a party? Why should I have to conform with someone's else choice for a senator?

[KY_EnviroGuy]

10. Sounds fair but Rethugs will say Wyoming has 67X antelope than CA...

and to them, antelope (like corporations) are people........

Thinking more broadly, do Senators have to be affiliated with a state? If we had a system where Senators served one-hundredth of the population, the nations could be divided in Senatorial districts set up just for that purpose.

But we would have to prevent the Rethugs from gerrymandering those districts......

Republicans now dominate more acreage but not more people.

[stopdiggin]

11. well, the greens, dem socialists, libertarians and independants

aren't going to be real thrilled.

Why all the roundaboutation? What is the purpose after all of having two chambers -- if we're advocating proportional representation in both?

[MichMan]

12. With your proposal, what is the reason to even have a Senate at all?

The House already exists for the purposes of representing the general population as you mention.

[gulliver]

13. We need about a quarter million Californians to retire in Wyoming

Come on, Californians! Take one for the team!

[TigressDem]

14. Checks and balances. Each State gets 2 Senators and then House is calculated by population.

The House is supposed to balance the Senate and the Senate balance the House.

WHILE I DO LIKE YOUR IDEA of ONE from EACH party. I'd rather just get out the vote and have 2 DEMs EVERYWHERE we can.

The idea of each state having an equal number of Senators is to show that each state whether largely populated or sparsely populated is equally valued under the whole USoA.

IF you put the Senate into play by population, then the smaller states rights get wiped out in a sense. Having no real say.

It was done this way to protect State's rights.

[BannonsLiver]

15. I prefer a parliamentary system but that ship sailed about 240 years ago.

[Deb]

16. No.

[uponit7771]

21. K&R, Similar with electoral votes. California needs to sue for more EVs !!!!

[Buckeyeblue]

27. This reality is a real failure of our constitution

I pretty sure the framers didn't anticipate states with such population disparity. This should be talked about more in the mainstream media.

[Rstrstx]

28. Adding more states would be far easier

Granting statehood to DC and willing territories such as Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands or Guam would add more Democrats if that’s your end goal. It would require a suspension of the filibuster but that is vastly easier than a constitutional amendment.

[marie999]

30. Those 3 plus American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands.

[former9thward]

37. DC would take a constitutional amendment.

The Constitution says the capital shall be a federal carve out not a state. As far as territories go most of them, if not all, are not interested in paying federal income taxes. States have to do that.

[Turin_C3PO]

41. If that's true

then why have several Democratic senators said that they would vote to make DC a state? I’ve never heard any of them mention that it has to be an amendment.

On edit: There’s a WaPo article that lays it all out here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/08/washington-dc-statehood-faq/

[former9thward]

47. The Post link mentioned the constitutional legal argument.

But then just brushed by it as if it doesn't exist. I doubt that will happen in real life.

[Polybius]

48. Senators have a history of voting for things that are unConstitutional

Many things that the Congress has passed has been stuck down by the Supreme Court over the years.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

29. So essentially a unicameral legislature

with a lot of unneeded nonsense to make it look like a bicameral legislature.

We don't want a unicameral legislature. There are a lot of problems with that.

[Takket]

31. the argument you are making is exactly why The House of Representatives exists

This is American civics 101

[Hortensis]

43. Yes, or to put it another way, democracy is why the house exists, and

the senate is the compromise small states required to provide a way to increase their power to oppose imposition of the will of democratic majorities concentrated elsewhere. Not unreasonable.

With the senate acting as the deliberative body originally intended -- as the cooling saucer for the hot tea of the very democratic house -- with more ideologically mixed parties and without the corrupting tool of the modern filibuster, that compromise once worked much better for all.

[Kaleva]

33. I think we need to look at the Senate body as a whole and not just CA vs. WY.

When I read OPs here about the unfairness of the Senate, the examples given are almost always a so-called blue state with a large population compared to a so-called red state that is sparsely populated. Never Texas compared to Delaware or New Hampshire.

OP talks about voting power but we should not ignore effective use of that power. With Dems now in charge of the Senate, Dem senators can be far more effective in using their power in getting their agenda advanced. Senators of the minority party will see their power greatly reduced and the change in status affects all senators regardless of the population of their respective state. For example: the two Repub Senators from the large state of Florida will see their effective power reduced vis-à-vis the two Dem senators from Delaware.

We believe that the policies of our Party will be of far greater benefit to practically all Americans regardless of where they live and thus the important thing is to gain control of the Senate and we do that by having 51 senators or more (or 50 senators and the VP) and it doesn't really matter what the populations are of the states they come from.

[roamer65]

35. Expand the size of the House and weaken the Senate.

I don’t think the Senate should be able to author any legislation, nor stop it. They only should be able to debate, delay or amend. Much like the Canadian Senate.

A House district should be no more than 250,000 of the population. This can be done by changing the 1929 law.

Changes to the Senate and eliminating the EC require constitutional amendments.

[brooklynite]

36. Many countries have an upper House that isn't "fair" in the context of one-man one-vote...

It represents a different aspect of legislative performance.

FWIW-We could go to a single-Chamber Legislature, in which case the Democrats would have been in minority for 20 years out of the past 26.

[MineralMan]

39. Two senators for each state.

The Senate represents states, not populations. Changing that requires a constitutional amendment. That will not happen. L We have more pressing problems right now. Focus, please.

[Yeehah]

42. Among the fundamental flaws in our democratic system that likely will destroy this republic

The electoral college and senators for real estate are the greatest problems, but people just shrug and say, "that's the way it is."

A serious, long-term campaign should be launched to amend the constitution to fix these major fundamental flaws. Public education on the issues should be a big part of that campaign.

[snort]

44. Weight their votes.

[lagomorph777]

46. A Wyoming resident has 67 times more Senate voting power than a Californian.

That's the real issue. The Senate was created to preserve slavery, and has been pretty successful at it so far.

[Polybius]

49. We're stuck with the system we have in place forever

We're never gonna have the votes to pass a Constitutional Amendment to change it.