General Discussion

FBaggins

(28,706 posts)

66. Not really.

Fri Apr 12, 2019, 02:20 PM

Apr 2019

At least... not for purposes of this thread. I don't see why it's relevant to parse age/sex/color/etc. for this conversation. VA wouldn't be a "small state" regardless of who you're willing to count as a person. It would still be the largest (granted... not by much)

The original claim was that the non-proportional nature of the US Senate was intended to "give the slave states more power". In my experience, this misperception is usually based on ignorance of history. The proponent (not necessarily in this case) usually believes that republicans are more likely to be racists and small population states are far more likely to be red... and that it must has always been like that. So they assume that the small states must have been the slave states.

The reality, of course, is that many of the free states were among the smallest and many of the slave states were among the largest. Especially if you consider that New York was a slave state at the time, the slave states would have been much better off with proportional representation in the Senate.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

87 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why Does Each State Have Two Senators, Regardless of Population? [View all] MineralMan Apr 2019 OP

Minority of white racist males want it that way, that is why Eliot Rosewater Apr 2019 #1

Nope. I simply described the theory that led to the creation MineralMan Apr 2019 #2

And you got it wrong jberryhill Apr 2019 #37

Thank you for this post. hunter Apr 2019 #52

Translation, boy were we and are we a RACIST nation. Eliot Rosewater Apr 2019 #55

Mount that one in your trophy case jberryhill Apr 2019 #60

Which states favored counting everyone (including slaves) as one person? former9thward Apr 2019 #81

It was designed to give the slave states more power. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #15

Not sure about that Sgent Apr 2019 #23

And what percentage of the population of these slave states guillaumeb Apr 2019 #50

See above link Sgent Apr 2019 #61

It was designed to get small states to sign on the dotted line. Demsrule86 Apr 2019 #32

No it wasn't FBaggins Apr 2019 #49

And what percent of Virginians were slaves? eom guillaumeb Apr 2019 #51

Lol... FBaggins Apr 2019 #53

An interesting reading on your part. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #57

Feel free to suggest a different reading FBaggins Apr 2019 #58

#71 guillaumeb Apr 2019 #72

Here jberryhill Apr 2019 #64

Thank you. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #71

And not only did they ensure there would not be a majority for overturning slavery jberryhill Apr 2019 #73

The economic system demanded nearly free labor. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #74

"Nearly free labor" jberryhill Apr 2019 #75

Of course. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #76

Enough to make a HUGE difference, though jberryhill Apr 2019 #65

Not really. FBaggins Apr 2019 #66

Maine didn't become a state till 1820 moose65 Apr 2019 #85

It was a last minute compromise, decided by ONE VOTE. There was no great consensus as suggested. hlthe2b Apr 2019 #3

Yes. One vote. And yet, that was the system that was adopted, as I said. MineralMan Apr 2019 #4

The spin has been for many years that this was our Founding Father's plan. That is not true. hlthe2b Apr 2019 #6

But it was the plan that was adopted. MineralMan Apr 2019 #8

When you fail to accurately attribute the vote to a 1-vote margin compromise it is deceptive hlthe2b Apr 2019 #9

I'm done. MineralMan Apr 2019 #11

I do not agree at all that MM was being deceptive. I have NEVER known him to be deceptive. pangaia Apr 2019 #19

There is a major effort to spin the decision on construct of the Senate with the implied hlthe2b Apr 2019 #24

It might as well be set in stone. It is not difficult to change but impossible. Demsrule86 Apr 2019 #38

And that is so dumb It makes my teeth ache... only blue states have signed on. Demsrule86 Apr 2019 #34

The EC compact only comes into play when enough states have passed to equal 270-- hlthe2b Apr 2019 #43

Does it go away if a state drops out and cuts the total under 270? FBaggins Apr 2019 #62

I believe so... but alternately the other states can enact legislation to nullify it. hlthe2b Apr 2019 #63

because it has NUMEROUS representatives, in the HOUSE. elleng Apr 2019 #5

It's the fatal flaw zipplewrath Apr 2019 #7

I didn't claim is was the best choice. MineralMan Apr 2019 #10

FATAL flaw zipplewrath Apr 2019 #36

We can't change the makeup of the Senate Sgent Apr 2019 #27

How could we make it less powerful? dumbcat Apr 2019 #42

Your right Sgent Apr 2019 #59

Where are you seeing this process? dumbcat Apr 2019 #67

That's true, but.... moose65 Apr 2019 #33

Not just Blue vs Red zipplewrath Apr 2019 #35

It wasn't based on some great principle of government; it was a compromise. The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2019 #12

Yes. A compromise. Everything involving an entire nation MineralMan Apr 2019 #17

I'm surprised you didn't catch the "one person, one vote" thing in there jberryhill Apr 2019 #41

Counselor, wasn't it also a nod toward the "House of Lords" concept in England? A HERETIC I AM Apr 2019 #54

Most likely, since that's the only model they would have been familiar with. The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2019 #56

Were they perhaps also modeling it after England PoindexterOglethorpe Apr 2019 #13

Sure. The founders were working with political theories of the time. MineralMan Apr 2019 #20

Sort of, except that the House of Lords has less power than the Senate. The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2019 #29

I think an alternate solution NewJeffCT Apr 2019 #14

That is certainly a possibility, but would not change the MineralMan Apr 2019 #21

Senate controls ALOT zipplewrath Apr 2019 #40

And that's why gerrymandering is such a big problem. It has damaged the one person one vote idea. jalan48 Apr 2019 #16

And that is really a State matter, at least from a constitutional perspective. MineralMan Apr 2019 #25

It was designed to give the slave owning states more power guillaumeb Apr 2019 #18

That's not really true moose65 Apr 2019 #31

Are you counting slaves as whole persons in those comparative figures? jberryhill Apr 2019 #39

I see your point moose65 Apr 2019 #86

That was the purpose of the so-called Three-Fifths Compromise, The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2019 #70

Burn the Senate to the Ground. maxsolomon Apr 2019 #22

What's your plan to do that? MineralMan Apr 2019 #30

You know about those people because I reminded you of them yesterday. maxsolomon Apr 2019 #69

Also worth pointing out that Senators used to be appointed by State Government... brooklynite Apr 2019 #26

Yes. That was changed by the 17th Amendment. MineralMan Apr 2019 #28

A Constitutional Convention would be a disaster. gordianot Apr 2019 #44

That is almost certainly true. MineralMan Apr 2019 #46

from my understanding, if you have a constitutional convention rurallib Apr 2019 #48

If those guys that made up the original marlakay Apr 2019 #45

You're probably right. MineralMan Apr 2019 #47

The founders had state legislators vote for them, too treestar Apr 2019 #68

Good discussion PAMod Apr 2019 #77

Because the US is not a democracy. doc03 Apr 2019 #78

As I said in the original post. MineralMan Apr 2019 #83

One possible solution to this dilemma - secession. Quemado Apr 2019 #79

So how would that be done, exactly, The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2019 #80

If there is no solution to this dilemma, the U.S. will become a minority-ruled country Quemado Apr 2019 #82

well ... ijs Lurker Deluxe Apr 2019 #84

You are correct, Mineral Man. I get it. Honeycombe8 Apr 2019 #87