5 ms·

I don't see the composition of the Senate as a problem. I see it as balance. More populous states get greater representation in the House. The Senate serves to

I don't see the composition of the Senate as a problem. I see it as balance. More populous states get greater representation in the House. The Senate serves to prevent more populous states from steamrolling less populous states. It's a feature, not a bug.

TheCoelacanth 11y ago
Since the passage of the 17th amendment, Senators don't represent states, they represent people. And some of those people have vastly disproportionate representation by Senators.
- gohrt 11y ago
  Senators represent the people of their state.
  - TheCoelacanth 11y ago
    Yes, and some of those people have a vastly disproportionate amount of representation.
- LordKano 11y ago
  The Constitution only provides for proportional representation in the House. There were disparities in population during ratification. This was a necessary compromise to address the concerns of the smaller states. The system is working as intended.
  - TheCoelacanth 11y ago
    I'm well aware of the reason it was created that way. I just don't think it makes sense in an era where 3/4 of the states are just arbitrarily chosen chunks of land rather than formerly sovereign entities.
Fishkins 11y ago
In my view, talking about how much representation a state deserves doesn't even make sense. People should decide elections, not some semi-arbitrary geographical boundaries. In the house, people are fairly represented. In the senate, people in smaller states are unfairly over-represented. It's a feature like an "install our app" popup on every random mobile site is a feature. Someone thought it was a good idea and did it intentionally, but I think it's awful and was done for bad reasons.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > In the house, people are fairly represented. Moreso than in the Senate, but beyond that, not actually fairly by most reasonable standards. Monatana's Congressional district has a little under a million people, each of Rhode Islands two districts has a little over a half-million. So the division into states creates an almost 2:1 advantage in representation for Rhode Islanders compared to Montanans in the House. Now, that's not as lopsided as the 66:1 advantage Wyomingans have over Californians when it comes to representation in the Senate, but its not exactly equal representation, either.

TheCoelacanth 11y ago

Since the passage of the 17th amendment, Senators don't represent states, they represent people. And some of those people have vastly disproportionate representation by Senators.

gohrt 11y ago
Senators represent the people of their state.
- TheCoelacanth 11y ago
  Yes, and some of those people have a vastly disproportionate amount of representation.
LordKano 11y ago
The Constitution only provides for proportional representation in the House. There were disparities in population during ratification. This was a necessary compromise to address the concerns of the smaller states. The system is working as intended.
- TheCoelacanth 11y ago
  I'm well aware of the reason it was created that way. I just don't think it makes sense in an era where 3/4 of the states are just arbitrarily chosen chunks of land rather than formerly sovereign entities.

Fishkins 11y ago

In my view, talking about how much representation a state deserves doesn't even make sense. People should decide elections, not some semi-arbitrary geographical boundaries. In the house, people are fairly represented. In the senate, people in smaller states are unfairly over-represented. It's a feature like an "install our app" popup on every random mobile site is a feature. Someone thought it was a good idea and did it intentionally, but I think it's awful and was done for bad reasons.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> In the house, people are fairly represented. Moreso than in the Senate, but beyond that, not actually fairly by most reasonable standards. Monatana's Congressional district has a little under a million people, each of Rhode Islands two districts has a little over a half-million. So the division into states creates an almost 2:1 advantage in representation for Rhode Islanders compared to Montanans in the House. Now, that's not as lopsided as the 66:1 advantage Wyomingans have over Californians when it comes to representation in the Senate, but its not exactly equal representation, either.