Wyoming gets 2 Senators

[SHRED]

So that means their two Senators represent a fraction of the California population yet they cancel out California Senator's votes.

That's just FUBAR.

[SWBTATTReg]

1. Rhode Island gets two senators too. If the house of representatives is keeping up w/ ...

population growth, it should accurately reflect the demographics. I don't know if it does. I wonder if anyone posted anything on this?

[sarah FAILIN]

3. I read an article on this

If California were represented as Wyoming, California would have something like 200 representatives. It is the house that was supposed to keep up with population but that stopped when we had one of the voting reform bills.

[itsrobert]

2. And Pueto Ricio, Guam, DC, etc

Gets none.

[brooklynite]

4. If you've got a way to get 3/4 of the States to buy into a Constitution change, I'm all ears

[Quemado]

5. The original sin of the Constitution

Quote from an article in The New Yorker magazine, December 9, 2013 issue

"The distortion created by small states having an equal number of senators has dramatically worsened over the centuries. In 1787, when the Constitution was drafted, the largest state, Virginia, had about eleven times as many people as the smallest, Delaware. Today, California has roughly seventy times more people than Wyoming. To Levinson, the creation of the Senate was the original sin of the Constitution."

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/09/our-broken-constitution

[Quemado]

6. IMO, for all practical purposes, it is now impossible to fix this problem

It would take an amendment to the Constitution to fix this.

Amendments have to be ratified by at least 37 states (3/4 of 50) to go into effect.

In other words, 14 states could refuse to ratify, and therefore prevent the amendment from going into effect.

I don't see low population states' legislatures willingly voting for an amendment that would result in low population states having less power in the Senate.

[Turin_C3PO]

12. Quemado

Do you live in Quemado? I’m down here in Silver City. :wave: 🙂

[Quemado]

15. Albuquerque

I adopted Quemado because it means "burned" in Spanish.

[LanternWaste]

7. Beyond Ideology Frances E. Lee tends to discuss both the pros and the cons of having a bicameral leg

Beyond Ideology Frances E. Lee tends to discuss both the pros and the cons of having a bicameral legislature (one based on equality of representation, and the other is purely democratic) allowing the tyranny of the majority as well as the tyranny of the minority from ever being fully realized.

In the second half, there's a wonderful monologue written by Justice Marshall on the senate's inherent necessity in a nation divided by miles, by gender, by race, by money and by privilege.

I get it that it doesn't fit on a t-shirt, but the complex rarely does. One can state "I know why is was created! Stop patronizing me!" to full and dramatic effect, but until and unless one searches for answers with sincerity and objectivity rather than simply the answers we believe should be the case, we're doing ourselves zero favors.


There is a story that Jefferson was out of the country in France during the Great Compromise that created the Senate. Upon his return during a breakfast he had with Washington, he called on Washington to account for the unnecessary legislative chamber. Washington noticed that Jefferson poured his coffee into his saucer and asked him, Sir, why did you do that? Jefferson replied, To, cool my coffee. My throat is not made of brass. To which Washington responded, Even so, we pour our legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.

[maxsolomon]

9. And now that saucer freezes it solid.

My pet solution: more states.

PR/USVI: 3.4 million
DC: .7 million
Add Guam/Samoa/Marianas to HI

[Buckeyeblue]

8. Agreed--we need to consolidate states

Wyoming, Montana and Idaho should consolidate. Same with north and south Dakota. Of course some of the northeast states will need to consolidate. Puerto Rico can become a state but it must lump in with Florida...

Can all of that be done without a constitutional amendment?

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

13. Yes

But both Congress and all the involved states legislatures must go along with it.

[pecosbob]

10. I don't think the Senate cares what you or I want...I don't think it was intended to do so

I believe the original intent of the drafters of the Constitution was for the Senate to act as the House of Lords in the UK...to act a brake on the populism of the House of Commons. The Senate was created basically to say no to most everything sent to them by the House in other words...to maintain the status quo. It is superfluous when both chambers are controlled by the same party...it simply acts as a rubber stamp for the House. When different parties control the two chambers, it becomes a roadblock for the House. In those days, Senators were directly appointed, just like judges are today.

In that sense, the Senate is functioning just as the founding fathers intended. I'd even go out on a limb and state that most of the founding fathers would be quite content with the current status in Washington...they were after all wealthy white male landowners and slaveholders. The #Metoo movement would probably scared have the shit out of them.

This country has always been controlled by the wealthy class as it was intended by those that crafted our new government.

This could be changed, but I imagine it would be difficult to find any elected official in Washington that will say on record that the Senate should be changed. Truth is that the Republicans have been working behind the scenes for a long time to return to the 18th century system of direct appointment of Senators, but it would require ratification by two thirds of the states, and I think that's too big a lift even for the Koch brothers.

[Quemado]

16. +1

Your analysis is quite correct. The founding fathers set the whole thing up to prevent change. Virginia and the other slave states would not join unless the institution of slavery was preserved.

[Turin_C3PO]

11. I get the anger toward the system

and agree that it probably isn’t the best. But due to the fact that this will probably never change (small states would never agree), I think our collective energy is best spent elsewhere. I get it though, it seems rather unfair. The good news is that blue states like Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Vermont get 2 Senators also. And thank the gods that a big state like Texas only gets 2 Senators. So that’s some comfort.

[Revanchist]

14. Why do people ignore the fact that the Senate

Was created to represent the interests of the state, not the people? For the first 150 years Senators weren't even chosen by people. The founders never expected the federal government to have the amount of power they currently have.

[sarisataka]

17. Wyoming is one state,

California is one state. They each have 2 Senators

If you want to compare representation by population you must look to the House of Representatives

[Quemado]

18. IMO, the best solution is

I know a lot of people are going to vehemently disagree with this, but, IMO, the best solution is for California and other states that are under-represented in the Congress, and especially in the Senate, is to secede and form a new country.

The new country's constitution would be based on the present U.S. constitution, but would have significant differences. For example:

1) There would be no electoral college; Presidents are elected by direct popular vote.
2) Representation in legislative bodies are proportional to a state's population.
3) Slavery is prohibited.
4) There is an unequivocal right to vote.

[DFW]

19. Consider what the founders were up against in 1787

The smaller states knew that their acreage would mean their interests would be swamped by the bigger states without some kid of assurance that their voices would be heard in the federation. The two Senators per state was throwing them a huge bone to get them to join the union without holding out for so long as to put the whole project in jeopardy of never coming together. With England chomping at the bit to try to take on the former colonies one more time, France and Spain not thrilled with a non-monarchy at THEIR colonies' doorsteps, the "united we stand, divided we fall" crowd was terrified that the experiment would fall apart before it ever got started, so they agreed to disproportionate representation in the Senate.

In 1787, no one had the slightest clue that places called Wyoming and Idaho would have the kind of disproportional clout that they do today. No one can lay that at James Madison's feet.