What's the argument for each state having the same number of US Senators?

[Garrett78]

Last edited Thu Jul 19, 2018, 12:48 PM - Edit history (1)

It seems to come down to this notion that tyranny of the minority is somehow better than tyranny of the majority.

Would the least populous states (Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, etc.) be all that harmed by having a Senate that is proportional like the House is? Would they not benefit from more affordable higher education, health care for all, comprehensive immigration reform, environmental protection, less wage disparity, and so on? Would there be no opportunity for Wyoming-specific legislation?

Edit: Apparently I need to clarify. I'm not asking how it originated. We all know about the compromise. I'm asking what justification there is for it in 2018. Anyway, as many have pointed out, probably the best available option is to greatly increase the number of districts/Representatives.

[hack89]

1. It works

Not perfectly but it works.

[Garrett78]

7. It doesn't work. 70% of the population will be living in 16 states before long.

70% of the population will be represented by 32% of the US Senate. That's fucked up.

[hack89]

23. If you say so. Nt

[kcr]

101. You're right. Everything is going great!

Our political system is a dream and everyone works together in perfect harmony

[shanny]

27. It's fucked up already.

Approximately 15% of our population (last census) live in the 25 smallest states. So 7.5% of the population (50% + 1 in each of those states) can elect half of the Senate.

One man one vote my ass.

[Garrett78]

41. Agreed. Reading that article earlier today just drove the point home that it's getting worse.

[raccoon]

107. Can you give us a link to the article? Nt

[Celerity]

110. here

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10889618

[LiberalFighter]

85. 100% of the population lived in 13 states right after the Revolutionary War.

[Spider Jerusalem]

103. 19% of the population in 1790 lived in Virginia

and New York and Massachusetts had the largest free populations. States like Rhode Island and Delaware wouldn't have signed on to the Constitution without the compromise on the number of Senators, but in the modern era it's effectively "tyranny of the minority".

[USALiberal]

71. Really? WTF does that even mean?? nt

[hack89]

83. It means it is better than most alternatives

That it has served us pretty well for 240 some odd years. That there is no pressing need to change.

[Crunchy Frog]

105. It works for the RW anti-democracy forces.

It doesn't work for the country, or the American people.

[hack89]

108. Ok.

Not really worth arguing over considering we have much bigger issues to address so no point in wasting time over things that will ne er happen.

[hack89]

109. It works well for Rhode Island

We have two great Democratic senators that are as progressive as they come.

[Crunchy Frog]

134. And our taxation system works great for billionaires

And a few of them are even somewhat supportive of progressive ideals.

I'd still prefer a much more equitable taxation system.

[hack89]

136. That's nice

I suggest you work on changing the tax system - at least that has some basis in reality.

[pnwmom]

151. It works for the states that are over-represented. Not for the states that aren't.

And it certainly won't work when 70% of our population is in only 30% of the states.

[hack89]

153. Oh well

there is no way that you could change things without hurting small states. Which is why nothing will change - the small states have absolutely no reason to support it.

[pnwmom]

157. Why would it be hurting the small states? I agree they would fight it -- because they would lose

their privileged status.

[hack89]

160. You have to get them to vote for it first

75% of the states have to ratify constitutional amendments. Now why do you think any state is willing to give up political power?

[Chickensoup]

152. It clearly does not work

if it did work we would not be in the shit we are In now. If it worked in the past it was
because we did not have a con like Trump
before.

[hack89]

154. From my perspective in Rhode Island it works very well

we value the work that Senators Reed and Whitehouse do for us. We will never support changing.

[guillaumeb]

155. Dictatorships "work" as well.

But the design is inherently undemocratic.

[hack89]

156. It was a necessary compromise to create America

it will never change so no point in worrying about it.

[guillaumeb]

158. Even thought it allows a very few rural states to control the rest?

The Constitution has been amended many times.

[hack89]

159. So convince all those states that stand to lose political power to support such an admendment

75% of the states have to ratify an amendment

[Garrett78]

203. How exactly would small states be harmed? Please provide specifics?

And why does a state or territory (as opposed to people within that state) need representation? What exactly does it mean to represent a state? And is that really what US Senators do? In theory, Kamala Harris represents the territory or state known as California and not the people of California, but does she? Again, what does that mean?

[hack89]

204. Our two senators have ensured Rhode Island gets its fair share of federal funds

They ensure local issue are addressed and funded.

[Garrett78]

206. We can create laws to ensure fairness/proportionality in funding without...

...having disproportionality in representation.

[WillowTree]

211. Why are you so determined........

…….that people in the less populous states shouldn't have any voice in the government? Just let the paternalistic large states "look after them" like children.

[Garrett78]

212. They would still have a voice. Why are you determined to make sure they have an outsized voice?

[WillowTree]

213. They would have no voice in the government that would mean anything.

The large states would have all the power and pull all the strings. The large states would decide what the smaller states need and make all the laws that the smaller states would have to live by. Truth is, the reasons for having one house of Congress based on population and one where all states are equal aren't substantially different now than they were when the Constitution was written.

And it's not going to change any time soon, so this is all just a debating exercise.

[Garrett78]

217. Please give specifics.

Again, laws can be created to ensure proportional federal funding. So, what specifically would Wyoming or Rhode Island lose out on if the US Senate was proportional (or if we just had 1 large chamber of Congress)?

What are your thoughts on the electoral college? It's a vestige of slavery and the same argument (small states wouldn't have a voice) is used to support it.

And supposedly the role of Senators is to represent the state/territory, while the role of Representatives is to represent the people, but is that really what takes place? And what does that really even mean to represent the state, as oppose to the people?

[WillowTree]

218. This is a pointless exercise.

You want a full-blown, straight-up democracy and that's not what we have and it's not what we're likely to have in any of our lifetimes. But you're welcome to dream, even in a democratic republic, so dream on and have a great weekend.

[DeminPennswoods]

2. Representation in the House is based on population

so larger states get more votes than small states.

Having each state get 2 senators allows small states like VT, CN, RI, NH, etc to be on even footing with the largest states.

It's an elegant solution to big state/small state disparities.

[Garrett78]

9. What does "on even footing" mean, though? Again, would the small states not benefit from...

...those things I listed in the OP, such as health care for all and a reduction in wage disparity?

Within a couple decades, 70% of the US population will be living in just 16 states. That means 70% of the population will be represented by 32% of the US Senate. How can that be justified?

[DeminPennswoods]

15. The US is a representative democracy

Do you propose you only get representation if you live where everyone else does? This is the tyranny of the majority.

We fought a revolution over taxation without representation because King George refused to take into consideration his colonists views and concerns.

[manor321]

18. No

This is not an argument in support of today's wild imbalance of representation. The small states have TOO MUCH say. It is a tyranny of the minority.

The Framers from the small states feared the big states would gang up on them. But this makes no sense, as history has shown. States work together when they are from the same region (see Civil War), not by state size.

The best solution is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

[Garrett78]

19. Like I said, it seems to boil down to the argument that tyranny of the minority is better...

...than tyranny of the majority.

But would Wyoming, Vermont and the rest really not have representation? Federal laws aren't meant to be state-specific. And those states would still get federal funding in accordance with their need.

[Sophia4]

104. The relatively few people who live in less populated states are represented when it

come to taxation.

It's those of us, the vast majority of us, who live in populated states that are taxed almost without representation.

Majority rule should BE THE RULE in a representative democracy.

States don't vote. People do.

At the very least, we need to get rid of the electoral college.

That a few people live in states with relatively low populations should not give those people as individuals a larger say per person that the many, many people living in large states like California, Texas, New York, Illinois, Florida, etc.

One person, one vote. That should be the rule.

[thucythucy]

129. I would add that the District of Columbia should be granted statehood.

It's absurd that a constituency that is more populous than Wyoming should have no representation in the Senate, and only one, non-voting "observer" in the House.

Taxation without representation indeed.

[Sophia4]

135. Yes, and the status of Puerto Rico should be changed so that it is a state also.

[thucythucy]

139. Absolutely.

[argyl]

221. Yes.

[Captain Stern]

222. I agree.

Even if the people there don't want to be a state, the rest of us should vote on it, and our vote should be binding, because there are more of us.

[Sophia4]

224. If they don't want to be a state, then we should have no responsibility for them.

It's their choice.

[former9thward]

32. Your wage disparity argument falls flat based on the figures.

The largest states TX, CA, NY, FL are all in the bottom seven states of income parity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient

[Garrett78]

37. There are many factors there.

My point is that we would see the establishment of a mandated living wage, health care for all, serious action on climate change (and so on) if we did away with this tyranny of the minority system (while also addressing the corruptive influence of money in politics).

Human progress (and common decency) is halted by this current system...and it's going to get worse as population shifts continue to occur.

The Democratic Party is at a distinct disadvantage.

[brush]

65. It would only be elegant if the representation in the House was...

fair. As it is now, California is grossly underrepresented in the House as the number of representatives is capped at 435 by the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

California and other large population states should have many more reps., but of course that won't happen as that would tilt the House leadership to a then Democratic majority.

If fair representation in the House was in place living with two Senators per state would be something roughly approaching fairness but with large, mostly Dem-dominated states under represented, the status quo is anything but elegant.

[Garrett78]

75. It's Republican privilege. Democrats are starting the race from well behind the starting line.

[LiberalFighter]

87. It got out of whack when they decided to limit the total number to 435.

If they increased the size of the House it could become more proportional.

[Celerity]

111. All that takes is an Act of Congress, it doesn't take a Constitutional Amendment

Good site that talks about all this

Return the House of Representatives to the People 435 Representatives Can Not Faithfully Represent 300 Million Americans!

[Garrett78]

124. Thanks for the link.

I fully support greatly increasing the number of districts. There would still be the problem of the Senate being able to prevent passage of legislation.

[Celerity]

127. Yes, I knew the Senate was slowly drifting this way as well but had no idea

it would be this bad in only 22 years (I am sure the effects will be felt more than now before then).

[LiberalFighter]

141. Yep!

[Demsrule86]

114. Now that is a good argument and possible. It should be increased. California is penalized by this.

[GulfCoast66]

161. I can't see this a being an issue

Each house districts has the same number of people in it. If you increase the number of seats in the house California gets more Blue seats. And Alabama, Louisiana and Kentucky get more red seats.

[Garrett78]

164. CA's increase in seats would be far greater.

If Alabama had a district for every 50,000 people, they'd have about 100 Representatives. California would have about 800.

[GulfCoast66]

165. Which is the exact same proportion those two states are now!

It would change nothing. In the house of representative every American is equally represented today. If we change the number nothing would change.

3/4 = 6/8 = 600/800.

[Garrett78]

170. High density/blue areas would be broken up into a lot more districts than...

...low density/red areas would be. Currently, Texas has 36 districts and 25 (nearly 70%) are represented by Republicans. Now, let's say Texas had more than 500 districts. Do you think 70% of those 500+ would still be represented by Republicans?

Do you think 26% of California's 800 districts would be represented by Republicans?

Do you think Alabama would still have Democratic representation in just 14% of its 100 districts?

[GulfCoast66]

171. Now you're moving the goalposts. Changing the subject really

What you’re talking about now is a function of gerrymandering not the number of representatives. It would be just as easy to gerrymander with more representatives. And all those red areas of California would also be getting more representation.

[Garrett78]

175. Fair point. And gerrymandering is made easier by the concentration of people...

Last edited Fri Jul 20, 2018, 09:13 PM - Edit history (1)

...of the same political persuasion, which makes urban/blue areas most vulnerable.

I guess I'd like to see a list of every district by population. In theory, every district should be about the same size, population-wise...but are they? Does your average 'blue' district actually have far more people than your average 'red' district? If so, then it would be in our interest to increase the number of districts and make sure every district has no more than, say, 50 thousand people *and* no fewer than, say, 45 thousand people.

I have not yet found such a list.

*Edit: But I did find this: https://demography.cpc.unc.edu/2016/02/29/u-s-congressional-district-population-estimates-and-deviation-from-ideal-population-size-2014/

If there are districts with considerably more people than other districts, that presents a real problem. Without a complete list, it's hard to say which party would benefit from greater parity, but I'm betting it would the Democratic Party.

Rather than put a cap on the number of districts, let's put a cap and a minimum on the number of people within a single district. And let's make that cap a lot lower than the current average (of nearly 800,000 people per district--ridiculous to have 1 person representing that many people)

[brush]

179. It's an issue because the number of reps was capped at 435...

since 1929 so no matter how large Cailifornia's population increases it's number of reps stays at 53.

And of course California's population has increased since then, way more than any of the smaller states you mentioned.

[GulfCoast66]

185. In 1930 California had 20 congressmen

As their population has grown in proportion to the othe states they have increased to their current 53.


You really should delete you posts on this subject. You are sincere but factual incorrect.

[brush]

186. You should read the link and google other repug schemes over the...

the years to undercount.

[GulfCoast66]

189. So now you just change the subject?

First you say California has had 53 congressman since 1929.

When proven wrong you change the subject to Republican shenanigans. Republicans have had lots of shenanigans, but till now It has not much affected congressional proportion to the states.

If you remember the original reason I challenged you was because you suggested we have to fix the house of representatives to make them more proportional.

I’m not looking to get in a fight and I do not question your sincerity. But on that one issue you were incorrect. I am sure on many other issues we would totally agree.

Have a nice evening

[brush]

191. You are correct about 53.

[JonLP24]

195. I would agree with that if Congress was proportional represented

Most people in states live in big cities but most congressional districts are rural. Not to mention Gerry Landerng.

[Tumbulu]

3. This is why the republicans have invested in 30+ years of the hate am radio that

"serves" these area. They have brainwashed the populations in these states completely, and all the time the liberals and progressives in the populated areas ignored us who lived/worked/hailed from these areas.

Until there is some check put on propaganda, I do not think we will survive as a nation.

The only other idea is to break up the big states into many more states so that each get two Senators.

I don't think it is an option to change the system of having two Senate seats per state. I wish it was.

[manor321]

10. Technically an option

There is technically an option, which is a constitutional amendment. However every single state would have to agree due to this clause in the Constitution:

"...and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

[EffieBlack]

46. Or we can just vote.

[Garrett78]

51. This is why I can't take seriously the idea that we just need to have a "50-state strategy."

Democrats aren't going to win WY, ID and the like unless we completely abandon core principles...and where would that get us?

People in those states aren't voting based on economic interests. They're voting based on perceived cultural/social interests.

[Tumbulu]

96. But we can fund progressive radio to battle these horrible stations.

We need to use these tactics as they have succeeded! All they hear is right wing propaganda and hate speech against liberals. Tune into these stations sometime and listen. It is highly sophisticated and they all work together. They have loyal multigenerational followers.

[Garrett78]

98. For sure. There are a number of media-related concerns we need to address.

And media literacy should be mandatory curriculum in every school.

[GulfCoast66]

162. I wish I could agree. But I can't.

Hate radio works because it gives people already prone to those positions what the want and then uses the classic propaganda tactic of repeating the same hyperbolic shit over and over.

I do not think there is a liberal market for that. Nor do I think it will draw away right wingers.

[Garrett78]

178. That's a good point.

And I don't think we'd have the financial backing necessary to maintain progressive radio at nearly the same volume, so to speak, as hate radio. If we did, there'd be a lot more progressive/liberal radio.

[BSdetect]

4. There are too many states, too many legislatures and way too many politicians

[manor321]

5. Compromise at the Convention

When the Framers met to debate forming a new government, small states refused proportional representation in the Senate. They wouldn't budge from that position. A compromise was made to get their signatures for the Constitution.

I suppose a modern argument is about "states rights", saying we're a confederation of states. But the unbalance gets worse and worse each decade.

[Garrett78]

11. They probably didn't envision 70% of the population living in just 16 out of 50 states.

[tirebiter]

22. There were only 13 states then

They also have 6 year terms. They were envisioned as the upper house where politics would be less of an issue.

[Garrett78]

33. Yep. It's a completely different world, and our laws should reflect that.

[treestar]

57. Exactly, farmers / rural live was the most common

They could not have pictured the Industrial Revolution.

[GulfCoast66]

163. I totally think they could picture of the industrial revolution.

Nor do I think they would be shocked at the size and complexity of the nation. They were steeped in enlightenment philosophies.

What they would be shocked at is the way so many people treat the constitution like the Bible. They fully expected the population to change the damn thing as the situation warranted.

[treestar]

168. True. I recall Jefferson's letters

and reading how he realized it would not always serve and that future generations could change it.

[tinrobot]

6. The best argument for it is no longer valid.

I could see it being a valid argument 200+ years ago when states were closer to being quasi-countries.

That power dynamic has shifted quite a bit, particularly after the Civil War. It no longer makes sense and simply shifts power away from the people.

Same goes for the Electoral College.

[Garrett78]

24. Yep, this isn't the 18th century. And soon 70% of the population will be living...

...in just 16 states, meaning 70% will be represented by 32% of the US Senate. How is that acceptable?

Federal laws apply to all states, and federal funding is provided in accordance with need (or at least it should be). The small states would still be represented. Wyoming isn't going to be harmed by the majority establishing universal health care.

Tyranny of the minority, which is what we are experiencing, is halting human progress.

[oberliner]

8. Is this post for real?

[Garrett78]

13. Yes. Because before long 70% of the population will be living in just 16 states.

70% of the population will be represented by 32% of the US Senate. I'm sure the framers didn't envision that.

[oberliner]

20. OK

But that's why we have the House of Representatives also.

In any case, are you proposing something here or just musing?

[Garrett78]

26. I'm arguing that both chambers should be proportional.

I'm arguing that tyranny of the minority is halting human progress.

I don't expect anything to be done about this, per se, so I guess you could say I'm just venting about the horrible disadvantage that this system poses for the Democratic Party (and it's due to get worse).

As I wrote in the OP, the argument boils down to this idea that tyranny of the minority is okay but tyranny of the majority is not. Of course, I don't think the small states would really suffer if the Senate was proportional like the House. I don't think Wyoming, Vermont and the rest would be harmed by, say, having universal health care.

[oberliner]

34. Then what would be the point of having two different chambers?

[Blue_true]

47. The two chambers have different constitutional rolls.

I am for the Senate being made proportional, AS LONG AS, all US Senator have to run statewide, otherwise we get a copy of the House, with gerrymandering on steroids.

My proposal, starting at a baseline of 1 or 2 US Senators per state, elect additional senators based upon a state's population. The states that have most of the people in the country should have a larger say in it's affairs.

[Garrett78]

49. I agree with this.

[oberliner]

70. What are your thoughts on the Electoral College?

[thucythucy]

78. I'd abolish it.

Twice now in my lifetime the Electoral College has gone against the wishes of the plurality if not the majority of voters, and installed two presidents who were patently unqualified for the job with disastrous results, setting this country back decades.

Under President Gore we wouldn't have had the obscene fiasco which was the invasion of Iraq. We might even have avoided 9-11, since a President Gore was much less likely to ignore all the warnings than President Dim Son.

And under President Hillary Clinton we wouldn't have a chief executive so clearly in violation of his oath of office.

In any real democracy the candidate with the most votes gets to take office.

[Blue_true]

79. It should be modified to also reflect population.

Last edited Wed Jul 18, 2018, 10:51 PM - Edit history (1)

A state like Wyoming should get 1 electoral vote, California should get between 60-80 electoral votes. In addition, there should be no sectioning like in Maine and Nebraska, the winner of a state should get every electoral vote, this gives appropriate power to the places where people actually live, like cities and surburbs.

[oberliner]

80. Have you seen this?

If Electoral Votes Were Weighted by State Population Alone: Trump 303, Clinton 235

https://www.270towin.com/news/2017/01/24/if-electoral-votes-were-weighted-by-state-population-alone-trump-303-clinton-235_442.html#.W0_3uNhKjfZ

[Blue_true]

88. No, I didn't see that.

The problem with your supposition is you take the electoral college as it is. In my example, California, New York, Illinois would have more votes relative to small states, that would have been counter weighed done by Texas and Florida, but in the balance, the additional votes brought by California, along with small red states losing votes should have given Clinton the win. Most of the +3 million Clinton margin came from California, if that came with electoral votes from small red states, that would have given her around 25 more EC votes from California alone, as things stand with the EC, those excess votes were wasted.

[oberliner]

89. This example gives California 65 electoral votes and drops Wyoming to 1

I'm not seeing how the example at the link is different from what you are proposing.

[Blue_true]

91. Did it adjust all states, or just Wyoming and California?

More small red states would lose votes, in the composite, that can work out to 80-100 EC votes shifting around. Also, it would force candidates to focus resources in purple states that pick up votes, like Florida and North Carolina. BTW, Hillary did not lose Florida by much, more resources put in Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville, Talkahassee, Gainesville, blue areas with some upside votes should have changed the Florida result. I love Hillary, but one valid criticism on her was that she sort of ignored the Midwest and Penn, even with Stein's bullshit, more effort there may have flipped one or two states.

[oberliner]

116. It adjusted all states

I was just using those two as examples since you had mentioned them (and they are the more extreme examples of numbers that would change). The article I linked to seems to do exactly what you are proposing and showing what the results would have been (which is Trump still winning by a few less electoral votes).

I guess part of the issue is with the "winner take all" factor. For instance, Hillary won California by a LOT whereas Trump won Michigan by a tiny amount - but in each case, the winner takes it all. So Hillary could have gotten a million fewer votes in California but still gotten the same number of EVs. The margin doesn't matter. Maybe it would be better to give them out proportionally?

[Garrett78]

121. Giving them out proportionally wouldn't solve the problem of...

...people in smaller states inexplicably having more say than those in larger states. CA having only 18 times as many electoral votes as WY is outrageous.

[oberliner]

131. True but it would address the millions of votes in California that didn't matter

HRC winning California by over 3 million votes should be worth more than winning by a few thousand, don't you think?

[Blue_true]

132. Allocating proportionally opens the system up to manipulation.

I don't mean manipulation from the left because I think that we play fair. I can see the Kochs and Mercers and other rightwing wealthy people distorting a system like that,

If you look at it, Hillary lost key states like Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin by a very small amount.

This is an observation on how I felt leading into Election Day in 2016. Some of you may not agree with what I write, but please understand that I am summarizing my real feelings at the time that I write about. I was really dismayed that Hillary seemed to be taking a lot of time off the campaign trial while Trump was doing 2-4 rallies almost every day, I was just uncomfortable with that as I saw Trump voters becoming more excited. Trump even came to my small area of Florida, which does not have the votes of South Florida, but statewide elections come down to margins, if Trump picked up 100 more votes in my town than he would have gotten because he showed up, once you multiple that by a thousand towns like mine across Florida, suddenly you have a 100,000 vote difference. Hillary didn't seems to go to the Tampa-St Pete area much, she stopped in Orlando maybe three times while Trump went there something like 10 times. I didn't see strong activity from our side in places like Gainesville and Tallahassee, small scale deep blue area where pulling out 1000 more votes for us would have maybe made a difference, as well as making a showing in smaller regions like mine. I saw Trump supporters out along the town square and other places every weekend with their signs, they were excited and becoming more confident, their candidate came to the area to fire them up, no one of note showed up for us. In 2008 and 2012, President Obama literally lived on the campaign trail as much as possible given his other duties, he regularly visited big cities and small backwater towns like mine.

Our nominee in 2020 must realize that he or she must live on the campaign trail as well as do their other duties, because Trump is a liar, if our candidate falls short on either role, Trump will attempt to exploit that, like he did with the imagery of Hillary being ill as she spent time off the campaign trail. I don't think actively campaigning will be an issue if our nominee is Bernie, I think that his message is a bit off, but he goes anywhere to talk to people (I said talk to, not listen). But some of the others like Harris and Booker, I am not sure will put in the draining time needed to fire up our side and keep it fired up. I have a lasting image of President Obama in 2008, the night before the election, speaking in cold rain in North Carolina, his voice hoarse from all the campaigning that he had done that week and the weeks before, him having just found out that his grandmother had died, if he was going down to defeat, it seemed he was going down having given his best effort.

[treestar]

59. Plus the judiciary exists to enforce

the bill of rights and avoid the tyranny of the majority that way.

We don't need it for the balance of powers. At this point living in a small state doesn't mean you somehow have less influence.

The right was arguing, so long as a Republican won the Electoral College, that "NY and CA would elect the POTUS." But that's absurd, as they still would not have a majority of voters. Now the swing states decide and that is not fair to non-swing states or bigger states. A popular vote would give everyone equal influence. So they have it backwards.

[Garrett78]

62. They know they have it backwards, but they like it that way.

[LanternWaste]

145. I've seen the allegation, but could you point us towards the actual argument

"I'm arguing that tyranny of the minority is halting human progress."

I've seen the allegation, but could you point us towards the actual argument using a premise, using objective evidence to support it, and using a conclusion synthesizing the argument that a bi-cameral legislature is in fact, retarding human progress?

(in case you are unaware, an allegation and an argument are two wholly separate constructs, the latter requiring precise ingredients rather than a mere bumper sticker)

[brush]

74. If the House had fair representation living with 2 senators per state...

would be tolerable, but because of the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 the House is capped at 435 representatives.

http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/

California and New York and other large states with Dem majorities should have many more reps as their populations warrant it, but that will never happen as that would take the leadership of the House away from the repugs.

It similar to the situation with the Electoral College. But unfair vote weightings favor repug-dominated states and the mere mention of fair apportionment sends repugs into near hysteria.

[former9thward]

36. I think the framers did envision exactly that.

The population of the 13 states was concentrated in just a few states.

[Garrett78]

39. Perhaps, but the total population back then was minuscule. It's a totally different world now.

[former9thward]

42. Let's have a new Constitutional convention then.

Write a new document from scratch.

[Garrett78]

43. I think that's the way to go, and I think the framers would've expected that to have happened by now

Talk about a massive undertaking.

[Blue_true]

50. That should be something. The Koch brothers and the Mercers will be dirty tricking

to get their flunkies dominating the conventioners.

[forthemiddle]

112. You are basically proposing eliminating the Senate, not changing it.

Under your proposal, what would be the difference between the House, and the Senate?
How, and why would they divide duties?

Remember, we are the United STATES of America, not the United People of America.

[treestar]

58. What's wrong with considering this issue?

It may be a pipe dream now, but every reform starts that way.

[oberliner]

72. Fair enough

It has led to an interesting discussion and that's good.

[PoliticAverse]

12. The argument is "all states have equal power" under the Constitution

The "bigger population" = "bigger representation" argument resulted in the House.

[Garrett78]

14. But, of course, all states don't have equal power. The small states have *much* more say...

...in deciding who gets elected POTUS, for instance. As a result, the Democratic Party is at a major structural disadvantage.

[PoliticAverse]

21. Well that's electoral votes not senators. And smaller states do have less say than larger states...

as they have less electoral votes although each person voting in the smaller states does have more influence
over each electoral vote than each person voting in the larger states.

[Garrett78]

28. The number of electoral votes is based on the number of Reps and Senators, giving small states...

...a disproportionate say in who gets elected. And it's not just presidential elections that are the issue. All legislation is impacted. If you do away with tyranny of the minority, we'd have universal health care, we'd have more affordable higher education, we'd have a fighting chance against climate change, and so on.

[treestar]

60. Electoral votes counts are affected

they are the number of representatives plus Senators. Thus the least a state can have is 3.

[2naSalit]

16. The Senate is proportional

so that at least one of the houses of Congress has equal representation without regard to population. I wouldn't want it the way you describe it, living in a state that has a population of roughly 1million, we only have one rep. in the House because of it.

[stopbush]

25. So, your two Senators represent a million people

while the two Senators from CA represent 38-million people.

That’s what gets people upset, especially when we see how the Senate acts under R control.

[Garrett78]

30. Yep. Tyranny of the minority prevents universal health care, action on climate change, etc.

[2naSalit]

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.

[stopbush]

147. Well, one fix would be to move some Senate functions - like confirming judges and SCOTUS justices -

to the House.

[WillowTree]

148. Which would also require a constitutional amendment.

[2naSalit]

149. I am okay with it

being a function of the Senate alone, the House has too many members to ever complete the process, I wouldn't want them to have that responsibility.

[Garrett78]

150. Just wait until the House has 5000 or 10000 members. We'll need a new Capitol Building.

[X_Digger]

17. Because we are the union of separate states?

[Hoyt]

29. Changing it is all but impossible.

[Garrett78]

31. I know, sadly.

But reading about how we're on track to have 70% of the population living in just 16 states (by 2040, I think it is) was the straw that broke this camel's back.

[AlexSFCA]

35. that is why we must always have 50 states strategy

there is no way around it and it will only become worse. We need to be able to compete with RW propaganda machine.

[Garrett78]

38. Unless Democrats abandon core principles, they aren't going to win in places like WY and ID.

[GulfCoast66]

166. Tell that to Doug Jones in Alabama

Or John Bell Edwards in Louisiana

We can win in these places.

[Garrett78]

167. There's a world of difference between a national campaign and a statewide campaign.

And let's remember that Doug Jones nearly lost to the worst candidate imaginable.

Also, you picked 2 states that have a large Black population. WY, ID and the like, not so much.

[JonLP24]

198. I think abandoning core principals

Hurts us in those states.

[Bettie]

40. So, what is your proposal to fix this?

How large would a state have to be to warrant a senator?

Would we also be removing house representation from small states to ensure that those flyover states don't get uppity?

[Garrett78]

45. Fairness. Proportionality. Every state would have at least 1 Senator.

Or maybe there would just be 1 chamber of Congress.

Ultimately, what's called for is a new constitution. See post #43.

[treestar]

63. I say one house only

based on population. Each representative is equal.

[brush]

76. We could live with 2 senators per state if the House representation...

was fair. As it is now the number of reps in the House was capped at 435 by the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 no matter how much a large state's population grows—see California, New York and other Dem. majority large states. All should have many more US reps. as their poputlations have increased exponentially since 1929.

http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/

Of course no adjustment will be made as long as repugs state legislatures and the House and Senate as adding fair representation in the House to the large states would shift leadership of the House to the Democrats.

[GulfCoast66]

169. Your post is factually incorrect

New York has been bleeding population like crazy for the last 30 years. And they have been losing representatives as that happens. That population has been moving south and the southern states have had their representation increase during that time. It’s the southern and western states that have had their populations increased exponentially over the last 50 years, much of that due to air conditioning. And the number of House members they have reflect that.


And has California’s population has grown they have been getting more seats at the expense of other states.

In the house of representatives at least, every American is equally represented. A Congress person in California represents the exact same number of people as a Congress person in Alabama.

The Senate? Well that’s a whole nother kettle of fish.

[brush]

174. Your post has some truths to it but NY is still one of the largest...

states and to insinuated that it's population hasn't increased since 1929 is ridiculous.

And ya might want to google how many people in California and NY and other large states are represented by one rep.

It's much higher than the number represented by reps in smaller states. That of course is not fair but won't be remedied until the number of reps in the House is increased from the permanent 435.

[GulfCoast66]

180. I'm about done here

Proportional representation obviously means little to you.



You keep talking about the law of 1929. It froze the number of representatives. But you are aware, are you not, that each 10 years the number of representatives each state has changes, correct?

The number of representatives the states in the Northeast has has been going down as the population of southern and western states have grown.

By the way I took up your google challenge. Every house district in the US represents around 711,000 Americans. Every district. Every district in California. Every district in New York. Every district in Alabama. Every district in Oklahoma. And so on. They are all the same.



I know you are sincere, but wrong in this issue.

And are you sure you are not mixing up the house and Senate? Cause the senate is anything but democratic.

[brush]

181. That 700k is an average. California should have more reps.

Repugs routinely manipulated census figures to undercount POCs to limit increases for Dem states.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-motives-behind-the-trump-administrations-new-census-question-on-citizenship

[GulfCoast66]

188. No it's not an average.

711,000 Is each must contain. And the last census was under President Obama with a Democratic Congress.

You really should study up on the Rule of Holes.

Your facts are incorrect although I certainly admire your sincerity.

Since your magic date of 1929 California’s congressional representation has increased from 20 to 53. It will change again in 2022.

[brush]

190. Dig into Tom Delay as one example of repug gerrymandering schemes.

[GulfCoast66]

192. Gerrymandering is a totally different thing than congressional proportioning

If you want to discuss it we might agree.

But I somehow doubt that the Republicans have gerrymandered the house seats in California.

[brush]

194. California was just an example. Gerrymandering IMO has contributed...

to repug control of the House which was my point all alone.

I thank you for the correx.

[Garrett78]

196. It is an average.

RI has 2 districts and Montana has 1, even though they both have about 1 million people. So, Montana's district has twice as many people as Rhode Island's districts.

Okay, that's an extreme example, but the point is that not every district has the same number of people...and a difference of even 10,000 can make a big difference. Let's say you take 5000 away from 1 district and put them in another district. That could potentially change the election results in either or both districts.

[GulfCoast66]

197. In that you are correct. The small states are the fly in the ointment

If less than 711,000 should the have none? And if say a million or 1.2 million do they get one or 2?

But my overall point stands. The number of house members really does not affect the balance of power. Gerrymandering? Well know, that is where the problem exists.

[Garrett78]

200. I'd like to see a complete list of districts by population size.

Because there's variance all over the place. In our other exchange within this thread, I posted this: https://demography.cpc.unc.edu/2016/02/29/u-s-congressional-district-population-estimates-and-deviation-from-ideal-population-size-2014/.

Are there districts within large states where the population difference is as many as 10,000? 20,000? 50,000? If so, that's a problem. 675,000 in one district and 750,000 in another district is a problem.

I don't think this problem is limited to small states.

[GulfCoast66]

202. I too would be curious

Except for the total number of seats the way they are laid out is up to this state legislature or in some cases independent commissions. I think we all know it’s impossible to get it to within 10 or 15 votes. At least not having tight contiguous districts as is called for in Most states.

When I moved to Florida Democrats were in control and they also Gerrymandered. But they did not have the computer tools that are available now. Which is why I favor independent commissions to assign districts.

Hell, the term gerrymandering comes from the earliest years of our nation. Wasn’t it Eldon Gerry?
Sorry, to sanguine right now to Google it! Enjoying a cigar and bourbon!

Have a nice weekend. I really these wonky discussion. Especially when we have disagreements that do not turn into insults! They have become rare in the age of Trump

[Garrett78]

205. It becomes even more impossible as the overall population grows.

The fewer people there are per district, the easier it is to reduce variance. Furthermore, one could argue 700,000 is just too many damn people for a single representative.

Democrats have also gerrymandered, I realize, but they are at a disadvantage due to the concentration of liberals in urban areas. Or, rather, it's easier (and more advantageous) for Republicans to gerrymander.

This increasing concentration of people (70% living in just 16 states by 2040) is what led me to start this thread, which was more me venting than anything else, though I think there's something to be said for having these discussions and planting seeds in the public consciousness. Even though major systemic changes like we're discussing here are not likely to happen anytime soon.

Questions I still have are those (and then some) I asked in post #203:

How exactly/specifically would small states be harmed (by making the Senate proportional or by doing away with the electoral college), as some argue they would be?

And why does a state or territory (as opposed to people within that state) need representation? What exactly does it mean to represent a state? And is that really what US Senators do? In theory, Kamala Harris represents the territory or state known as California and not the people of California, but does she? Again, what does that really mean to say she represents the territory? Does she represent the arbitrary border, the mountains and bodies of water, the natural resources?

Senators sure tend to talk like they represent the people, just as Representatives do, but supposedly the Senate is for the purpose of representing states and the House is for the purpose of representing people.

Have a good weekend.

[GulfCoast66]

208. So much good food for thought here.

But I am winding down for the night.

We can take it up some other time.

[Garrett78]

209. Sounds like a plan. I may start a new thread asking those questions.

[GulfCoast66]

210. Wait till tomorrow? Please 😄

[Garrett78]

216. Oops. Here's the link, so that you can find it tomorrow:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210904606

[sdfernando]

44. Not directed at anyone in particular

But it is obvious that civics / government is no longer taught in school.

The make up of the house and senate were compromises in order to form a government. Without these compromises we could all still live under British rule.

Do people know that originally senators were elected by each state legislature and not by popular vote?

Change can happen but it takes constitutional amendments to do it.

[Garrett78]

48. I get all of that. This is a completely different world now, and I suspect...

...the framers would have expected us to have written a whole new constitution by now. And I think that, ultimately, is what must be done. I just don't expect it to happen in my lifetime.

[sdfernando]

67. I am loathe to have a Constitutional convention

To rewrite the Constitution. The original framers were intelligent sober minded idealists and they made the best possible choices. The people who would be write the constitution today scare the living shit out of me!

[Garrett78]

69. They were a small group of wealthy, white supremacist men. Let's not glorify them.

[sdfernando]

126. I don't believe I'm glorifying them

Many of the founders were NOT slave owners. Benjamin Franklin at one time had two slaves that worked as personal assistants and on his newspaper. He freed them before the Constitution was written and was a leading abolitionist. I think the "white supremacist" comment is a rather broad bursh. Many were simply not.

The Constitution was and is a document full of compromises and a product of the time it was written. It is a living document and has changed over the years with the adoption of 27 amendments.

I stand by my statement that the founders did a good job in crafting it.

[TomSlick]

52. The Connecticut Compromise which resulted in each State, irrespective of size, having two senators

was the "Great Compromise" that allowed for the States to agree on a Constitution.

I agree that Wyoming having the same number of Senators as California is grossly undemocratic, however, there is no hope for a constitutional amendment since the Connecticut Compromise is specifically protected by Article V of the Constitution which requires the unanimous consent of all the states to alter.

I suppose it is possible that the Constitution could be thrown out and we start again in another constitutional convention. Of course, if we open that Pandora's box, there is no way to predict what will come out.

This time, better the devil we know.

[Garrett78]

53. I bet the framers would be surprised to know we haven't already had another const. convention.

[TomSlick]

54. Oh, surely not!

We all know the framers were all near omniscient. They surely had no doubt that their work product was both eternal and infinitely wise.

Were this not the case, surely we would not all bow at the altar of original intent.

[fescuerescue]

128. Perhaps.

And I bet Trump would absolutely love to have one right now.

I just hear it. "Believe me, my new constitutional is going to be the best one ever".....

[treestar]

61. the smaller states might not be so

concerned at this point in time. I'm from a small state and not concerned that having a popular vote for POTUS or equality in Congress based on numbers is going to somehow hurt the state.

[TomSlick]

84. Smaller Republican states would never go along. They will not give up their over-sized power.

Minority control is a bad thing - unless you're in the minority.

[sunonmars]

55. should be 1 senator allocated to each state and the other 50 given proportionally by size

So each state gets 1 Senator.

Then it has to reach the quota size to get another

So lets say Population is 200 million....

A state has to have 4 million to get another senator.

So if Montana is population of 1 million, it gets 1 + 0

If West Virginia was population of 4.1 million, it gets 1 + 1

If NY is 20 million it gets 1 + 5.

Much fairer way of doing it.

[dflprincess]

93. That's how the House works.

The senate was designed to give each state equal footing in that body.

However, there is no reason the size of the House of Reps could not be increased so the smaller states did not have more say than they should.

[treestar]

56. Now not much, but back at the start

All colonies needed to sign on - one that didn't could be a base for the British. Each colony had its own power structure, and those who had power in the smaller colonies would not give it up. And remember originally they were elected by State legislatures. It was a sop to smaller states.

[sarisataka]

64. Look up the Connecticut Compromise

But also consider the current makeup of the house is 54% Republican, 46% Democratic

The 'tyrannical' Senate is 51% Republican and 49% Democratic or Independent

[Garrett78]

68. I'm aware of how things came to be, but this is a completely different world.

The current makeup isn't really relevant. And there are obviously other steps that need to be taken (ending Russian influence, ending gerrymandering, ending voter suppression, fairness doctrine and mandatory media literacy curriculum, ending all forms of corruption, etc.).

The Democratic Party is at a distinct disadvantage due to population concentration, and it's going to get worse.

Human progress is being stalled. No real action on climate change, millions without health care coverage, etc., etc., etc.

[beachbum bob]

66. Argue with the founding fathers...but seems to work.

[Garrett78]

73. The framers couldn't have envisioned today's world.

And there are now more than 100 times as many US citizens as there were back then.

[DanTex]

77. There is none, and it's funny watching people try to defend it.

It's an anachronism. It's totally illogical and undemocratic, it gives people living in low-population states far more political power than people living in high-population states, and there's no justification for it whatsoever other than "that's the way it is".

The people who defend it are generally those who benefit from it, or else the it's tendency of people to think the status quo is good simply because it's the status quo.

The bad news is we're stuck with it because the constitution isn't going to change anytime soon. But, no, there's no logical or moral reason for it.

[KelleyKramer]

81. Good grief, get a 5th grade civics book

I'm sure they have them at the library

Hint- it was a compromise between big colonies and little ones

[Garrett78]

82. I didn't ask how it originated. I asked what the current justification is for it.

This is a completely different world than what the framers experienced.

[KelleyKramer]

92. The same as it has been all along

Get the book, it will answer your question

Have a good day

[Garrett78]

95. Thanks for the snark, but I don't think that justification applies any longer.

I'm obviously not alone in that opinion if you read through this thread. Have a good night.

[kcr]

102. Super informative!

Your post perfectly answers why some states should have proportionately more representation than others. Brilliant.

[LiberalFighter]

86. The Senate is the last chamber to pass the law.

If it was representative of population it would make it even more difficult for the chamber to agree and pass legislation.

[AncientGeezer]

90. "What's the argument for each state having the same number of US Senators?"

Umm....The Constitution. ArticleI SectionIII...you can try to amend it but you won't get it done

[Garrett78]

97. That's not an argument for it. And this is a completely different world now.

What we have is tyranny of the minority, and 1 of the 2 major political parties is put at a distinct disadvantage.

[AncientGeezer]

115. How is each State having 2 Senators cruel Government?

[Garrett78]

119. A fraction of the population is represented by half the Senators.

While the remaining 90+% of the population is represented by the other half. I don't see how that's acceptable.

[Recursion]

94. It was a necessary concession to get the smaller states to ratify the Constitution

It's an incredibly unfair and undemocratic institution, but without it we don't have a Union at all.

[Garrett78]

99. Yes, that's how it originated. But, as you say, it's incredibly unfair.

The framers couldn't have imagined how wildly different today's world is. And when I read this morning about how 70% of the population will be living in 16 states by 2040, I just had to vent. Our preferred political party is at a distinct disadvantage, which is difficult to overcome even though there are more of us than there are of them.

[Recursion]

100. And then the same pressures that originate it sustain it

We'd have to get low-population states (some of them at least) to agree to give up their outsized influence in order to change it.

Got any ideas on how to do that?

[joshcryer]

118. It's absolutely necessary to have a balance between territory and population.

It's actually a genius concept because you have two powerful representatives who represent the territory (the state) and then you have local representatives who represent the people.

[Recursion]

123. Yeah, I don't particularly care about the territory

And personally I'd prefer a technocratic upper house, a la the reformed House of Lords.

[Garrett78]

187. Why does a territory need representation? What does that even mean?

How does, say, Senator McConnell represent Kentucky and not the people of Kentucky (or, rather, multinational corporations)?

[still_one]

106. You can have all the intellecutual thought games you want on this, the reality is it isn't going to

happen. At the minimum the small states will never go for it.

[Demsrule86]

113. It really doesn't matter because you won't change it. If you can't convince enough people to vote

for you and to support your policies, you won't get the what you want...you in the generic sense. I can say that medicare for all won't work as it takes people off of work insurance and puts them on Medicare for all and the taxes will be very high-this is what happened to the Clinton health plan and most are still covered by work plans...but we can get universal coverage working with the ACA ...something like Germany's or France's system. We need to insure those who need insurance not shoot for everyone. If you lose your job or you are an entrepreneur or your job does't offer insurance although those that don't should be punished.The system is what it is...you have to work within it. I will say as fewer people have work insurance things can change and maybe move towards the Medicare for all type insurance. But no system is perfect.

[joshcryer]

117. It's the epitome of perfection for a democratic republic.

Our problem is not the senate our problem is the house. George Washington envisioned 10,000 (yes, ten thousand) House Representatives. Currently we have 435, a cap set in 1929, when the population was 121 million. The current US population is about 325 million. We need at least double the 435, say, 870, maybe 850 representatives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment

The senate makes sense as they are the true representatives of a state, they are supposed to be the best of the best, the people who represent the entire mindshare of a state. The founding fathers didn't get it wrong. They got it so right it's disgusting.

[Garrett78]

120. I agree about boosting the number of Representatives.

But the Senate could still block legislation. And half the Senate represents a tiny fraction of the population. By 2040, it's expected that 70% of the population will live in just 16 states. People need representation, not states.

[joshcryer]

122. That's fine. If there is an overwhelmingly popular bill...

...and the Senate chooses not to pass it, then they will be ousted.

The 6 year term forces a very slow change, but the Senators will presumably be ousted if they don't follow the will of the people.

The good thing about democracy is that it's slow to change. Rapid change can be bad.

[Garrett78]

125. Presumably, but that sure as hell isn't happening now.

I suppose that could change if we up the number of districts and legislation has overwhelmingly support in the new 5000-member or 10000-member House. A lot of pressure then on those Senators in WY, ID and the like.

[NCTraveler]

130. The argument is that....

The Senate is to provide equal state representation and the House is to provide equal population representation.

[jmg257]

133. Because we were only a Union, where States had much more power, and Senators represented THOSE

Entities.

The upper house was elected by State legislatures, and were to represent the state's interest, not the people's directly.

The people got their say via reps in the lower house.

[WillowTree]

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.

[D_Master81]

138. It was a compromise

Back when the founders were laying out the system the bigger states wanted it by population while smaller states wanted equal say. So they compromised and did both with 2 branches of government instead of 1.

[WillowTree]

142. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for the sake of clarity, I think you meant to say.......

.......two branches of Congress, not two branches of government.

[D_Master81]

193. correct

thank you

[louis c]

143. You have to go back to the begining

The compromises in the original constitution were between states with many slaves, and those with few or none.

The Southern States wanted more representation than they deserved. That's how we got the 3/5ths compromise, the US Senate and the Electoral College.

In order to have a single nation made up of different states, we needed to postpone the Civil War for a couple of generations.

[LanternWaste]

144. On the off chance schools no longer teach the basics...

(though I'm guessing it's still taught, though we often ignore these things when actually taught to us in high school in favor of having fun)

Each of the following sources expounds clearly and without ambiguity, the arguments used in the creation of a bicameral, rather than unilateral system (or even the tricameral system as John Adams toyed with).

Of course, these are actual books, and don't play into the "I-looked-it-up-myself-and-couldn't-find-anything-so-instead-I-pretend-ignorance-and-ignore-every-valid-answer-given" routine too well. But I'm certain you'd never do that...


Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Joseph Story

Poor Representation: Congress and the Politics of Poverty in the United States, Kristina Miler

The Paradox of Representation, David Lublin

There are course, also primary sources: Debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 (on record)

[Garrett78]

146. You must have missed my edit of the OP.

I'm not asking how it originated, or what the argument for it was in the 18th century. We all know about the compromise that was made. I'm asking what the current (2018) justification is for it. This is a completely different world than the one the framers experienced.

I would settle for a massive increase in the number of districts/Representatives.

[GulfCoast66]

172. Every idea floated here would not only require a super majority in Congress.

But also a super majority of state legislatures and governorships.

If and when we get that, I will not be arguing for these changes, but scrapping the whole fucking thing and getting a parliamentary system like most of the Democratic world has.

Keeping an independent judiciary and bill of rights, of course.

[Garrett78]

177. Actually, that would be my preference, as well.

But that's no more feasible than, say, making the US Senate proportional.

We would need a new constitution. Today's world is outrageously different than the one the framers experienced.

[jmowreader]

173. This is basic civics

What I’d like to see:

1) Repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act.

2) Each state receives one congressional seat per full number multiple of the population of the smallest state as of the date of the census. To make it easy, we’ll say Wyoming has 500,000 residents. If New Hampshire comes in at 1.05 million, they get two reps. If Idaho comes in at 1.499,999 residents, they still only get two seats - they missed.

3) Redistricting only happens if the state’s delegation changes. Furthermore, it will be done by a federal nonpartisan committee whose mission is to avoid gerrymandering.

4) If we must have an electoral college, a state’s electors are equal to its representatives...Wyoming gets one vote, not three.

5) Direct election of the president will be a better option.

[Garrett78]

176. I wish people would stop with the "basic civics" stuff, especially since I clarified the OP.

See the "Edit" of my OP. I'm obviously not asking how this system originated. I'm asking what the current justification for it is. I figured that was pretty obvious.

[jmowreader]

199. You mean, why do we still have it?

We have it because the people who we would need on our side to change it like corrupt Republican presidents.

[Garrett78]

201. Basically, but I'm well aware of the enormous hurdles in the way of amending the constitution.

I've thought for as long as I can remember that we need a whole new constitution. And I like the idea of a parliamentary system.

I don't expect anything this substantial to happen in my lifetime. I don't even think we'll do away with the electoral college in my lifetime. But if we don't start planting seeds, they'll never grow.

I started this thread, because I wanted to vent after reading about how 70% of the US population will be living in just 16 states by the year 2040. This puts the Democratic Party at an increasingly large disadvantage.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

182. The Greens want to eliminate the Senate because it's undemocratic.

A fair compromise would be to keep the Senate and eliminate the EC. It's insane the person who gets the most votes loses.

[Garrett78]

184. It is insane.

As for the Senate, I must admit that I don't really get the argument that we need a chamber to represent states, while the other chamber represents people. Why does a state need representation? What does that really mean?

[wonkwest]

183. So urban doesn't overrun rural

This is a simple explanation, and an easy one to understand if you read the letters of the people involved in the convention.

The idea being, in a Republic, which we are, the bigger populations shouldn't be able to run over the smaller states. At the time, Virginia was a power house. The smaller colonies wouldn't enjoin a Union if Virginia and a few allies could just overrun them at every turn. This was supported in many ways.

Our forefathers had incredibly different ideas. There were some who thought pure population should determine things. But there were others that had a strong allegiance towards people being able to locally govern. Virginia-Kentucky Resolves.

It was a thing in our history. They had reasons for thinking the way they do.

Did they envision one state, like California, would be 10% of our population? Yes and no. But a state like California isn't supposed to just run things.

You can't have five cities or so dictating to the rest of the country.

That was the basic idea.

And it was wise as shit.

[Garrett78]

207. Please see posts #203-#204, as well as #206.

[wonkwest]

220. I saw

If you’d like to see the Republic break apart, go for it.

It won’t ever happen, you can agitate for it and lose extremely hard.

Franklin once warned: Its a Republic if you can keep it.

You want to give up? Great. I don’t.

[a kennedy]

214. and I'm sorry to say.....and hope it hasn't been said already......

it’s to have equality......REMEMBER THAT.?? Equality. 50 States...... 2 Senators each. And how cool, ya work your butt off getting two of the same party to agree.

[a kennedy]

215. HOLY CRAP.....IS THIS THE LONGEST THREAD EVER???

All answers to all ideas....and if more ideas out VOTE others..... THEY WIN. unless there is cheating. PERIOD. IT’s now, how do we as a democracy and humans survive.

[Saguaro]

219. The argument is we haven't adjusted the electoral process at all despite 250 years of change.

Those who think rules for 1776 America should blindly apply to 2018 America are sorely mistaken, and get what's coming to them -- like the GOP and Trump.

[Captain Stern]

223. It gives the states with smaller population disprapportionate strength in the Senate.

And, I don't think that is a bad thing, considering that States (small, or otherwise) can't leave the United States. It's all part of the deal of signing up.

I can understand the argument for making all representation in the two chambers of Congress proportional to population, but I think if that's the way we go, the States should be able to opt out of the Country also.