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]2naSalit
(86,920 posts)140. And that's why the
House is proportional. I don't get what your problem is but that's all I have to say about it because I doubt there's a better system which could be implemented in any time span that would be helpful at the point.
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