Democrats need to start making what's happening in Wisconsin, the removal of a newly elected

[Model35mech]

47. That's what happens when you make Grand Compromises.

Living in WI, I really appreciate the chorus John Prine wrote:

"I used to sleep at the foot of Old Glory
and awake in the dawn's early light.
But much to my surprise, when I opened my eyes
I was a victim of the Great Compromise."

We ended up with 2 senators per state, because to get the Constitution adopted, it was necessary to recognize the notion that the states were -- despite variation in population, economic strength, and foot-print on a map of N. Am-- at least in principle, equal under the law.

If you look at the Constitution as it emerged from the Constitutional Convention of 1787 you will notice that of the 3 branches of government only half of one branch, the legislative branch is determined by popular vote. The executive branch and the judicial branch are not. Democracy in the sense of people electing all those who make up the government isn't the model that the Authors used, and mirroring of the size of a states delegation to Congress in proportion to a states population is imperfect, but never intended to be.

Every state gets at least one representative in the House, and not all the population in a state were counted equally.

These weren't glitches. They were done purposefully to ensure adoption of the Constitution with the hope that our governing document could be influenced by progress towards a more perfect nation.

That progress was slow, as we can see in Oklahoma, where Cherokee Indians just now are getting consideration for a House representative that they were "promised" by treaty (I put that in quotes because a Treaty with an Indian Nation is not a vehicle recognized by the writers of the Constitution and there has been a question whether honoring a promise was Constitutional).

Certainly, such representation may seem 'fair', but you know, when it happens the small size of the indigenous nation would create even wider range in the number of citizens each House delegates represent. At the time the Constitution was written making sure that every state had at least one Representative in the House also seemed fair, no matter how much Californians, and residents of states with multiple great cities kick about it now.

These disparities really do exist, and imo, probably won't be amended away. Now, just as when the Constitution was adopted in Convention, people, especially politically active people in small population states, will not willingly agree to change that reduces their existing representation.