Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What's the argument for each state having the same number of US Senators? [View all]WillowTree
(5,325 posts)137. Consider that if all of Congress was proportional based on population.......
.......then the citizens in the less populous, more rural states would effectively have no voice in Congress at all. The bigger states would just run roughshod over them.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
224 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
What's the argument for each state having the same number of US Senators? [View all]
Garrett78
Jul 2018
OP
It doesn't work. 70% of the population will be living in 16 states before long.
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#7
Agreed. Reading that article earlier today just drove the point home that it's getting worse.
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#41
100% of the population lived in 13 states right after the Revolutionary War.
LiberalFighter
Jul 2018
#85
It works for the states that are over-represented. Not for the states that aren't.
pnwmom
Jul 2018
#151
Why would it be hurting the small states? I agree they would fight it -- because they would lose
pnwmom
Jul 2018
#157
So convince all those states that stand to lose political power to support such an admendment
hack89
Jul 2018
#159
Our two senators have ensured Rhode Island gets its fair share of federal funds
hack89
Jul 2018
#204
They would still have a voice. Why are you determined to make sure they have an outsized voice?
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#212
What does "on even footing" mean, though? Again, would the small states not benefit from...
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#9
Like I said, it seems to boil down to the argument that tyranny of the minority is better...
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#19
The relatively few people who live in less populated states are represented when it
Sophia4
Jul 2018
#104
Yes, and the status of Puerto Rico should be changed so that it is a state also.
Sophia4
Jul 2018
#135
If they don't want to be a state, then we should have no responsibility for them.
Sophia4
Jul 2018
#224
It's Republican privilege. Democrats are starting the race from well behind the starting line.
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#75
All that takes is an Act of Congress, it doesn't take a Constitutional Amendment
Celerity
Jul 2018
#111
Now that is a good argument and possible. It should be increased. California is penalized by this.
Demsrule86
Jul 2018
#114
High density/blue areas would be broken up into a lot more districts than...
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#170
Fair point. And gerrymandering is made easier by the concentration of people...
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#175
This is why the republicans have invested in 30+ years of the hate am radio that
Tumbulu
Jul 2018
#3
This is why I can't take seriously the idea that we just need to have a "50-state strategy."
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#51
They probably didn't envision 70% of the population living in just 16 out of 50 states.
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#11
Yep, this isn't the 18th century. And soon 70% of the population will be living...
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#24
Yes. Because before long 70% of the population will be living in just 16 states.
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#13
True but it would address the millions of votes in California that didn't matter
oberliner
Jul 2018
#131
I've seen the allegation, but could you point us towards the actual argument
LanternWaste
Jul 2018
#145
Perhaps, but the total population back then was minuscule. It's a totally different world now.
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#39
I think that's the way to go, and I think the framers would've expected that to have happened by now
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#43
That should be something. The Koch brothers and the Mercers will be dirty tricking
Blue_true
Jul 2018
#50
But, of course, all states don't have equal power. The small states have *much* more say...
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#14
Well that's electoral votes not senators. And smaller states do have less say than larger states...
PoliticAverse
Jul 2018
#21
The number of electoral votes is based on the number of Reps and Senators, giving small states...
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#28
Yep. Tyranny of the minority prevents universal health care, action on climate change, etc.
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#30
Well, one fix would be to move some Senate functions - like confirming judges and SCOTUS justices -
stopbush
Jul 2018
#147
Just wait until the House has 5000 or 10000 members. We'll need a new Capitol Building.
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#150
Unless Democrats abandon core principles, they aren't going to win in places like WY and ID.
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#38
There's a world of difference between a national campaign and a statewide campaign.
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#167
Gerrymandering is a totally different thing than congressional proportioning
GulfCoast66
Jul 2018
#192
I get all of that. This is a completely different world now, and I suspect...
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#48
They were a small group of wealthy, white supremacist men. Let's not glorify them.
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#69
The Connecticut Compromise which resulted in each State, irrespective of size, having two senators
TomSlick
Jul 2018
#52
I bet the framers would be surprised to know we haven't already had another const. convention.
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#53
Smaller Republican states would never go along. They will not give up their over-sized power.
TomSlick
Jul 2018
#84
should be 1 senator allocated to each state and the other 50 given proportionally by size
sunonmars
Jul 2018
#55
I'm aware of how things came to be, but this is a completely different world.
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#68
I didn't ask how it originated. I asked what the current justification is for it.
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#82
Thanks for the snark, but I don't think that justification applies any longer.
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#95
"What's the argument for each state having the same number of US Senators?"
AncientGeezer
Jul 2018
#90
It was a necessary concession to get the smaller states to ratify the Constitution
Recursion
Jul 2018
#94
It's absolutely necessary to have a balance between territory and population.
joshcryer
Jul 2018
#118
You can have all the intellecutual thought games you want on this, the reality is it isn't going to
still_one
Jul 2018
#106
It really doesn't matter because you won't change it. If you can't convince enough people to vote
Demsrule86
Jul 2018
#113
Because we were only a Union, where States had much more power, and Senators represented THOSE
jmg257
Jul 2018
#133
Consider that if all of Congress was proportional based on population.......
WillowTree
Jul 2018
#137
Correct me if I'm wrong, but for the sake of clarity, I think you meant to say.......
WillowTree
Jul 2018
#142
Every idea floated here would not only require a super majority in Congress.
GulfCoast66
Jul 2018
#172
I wish people would stop with the "basic civics" stuff, especially since I clarified the OP.
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#176
Basically, but I'm well aware of the enormous hurdles in the way of amending the constitution.
Garrett78
Jul 2018
#201
The argument is we haven't adjusted the electoral process at all despite 250 years of change.
Saguaro
Jul 2018
#219
It gives the states with smaller population disprapportionate strength in the Senate.
Captain Stern
Jul 2018
#223