4 ms·

The major reason is that smaller states wouldn't have joined any proposed Union that made them irrelevant, so the founders had to have things like the Senate to

The major reason is that smaller states wouldn't have joined any proposed Union that made them irrelevant, so the founders had to have things like the Senate to get them to join at all. This is, of course, no longer relevant.

twoodfin 9y ago
If it’s no longer relevant, it should be possible to convince small states both red & blue to accept an obviously superior system. But it is still relevant for just about all the reasons it was relevant then.
- philwelch 9y ago
  I think if you had some way of forcing the issue, and telling states like Kansas and Mississippi that they didn't get to have disproportional control over the federal government anymore, and if they didn't like it, they could just stop being subsidized by California and New York, either they would go along with it, or they would secede from the union and deteriorate into third world countries.
rukittenme 9y ago
Why would states persist in a union that made them irrelevant? The politics are still as relevant today as it was then.
- s2g 9y ago
  Because the alternative is worse.
- mikeash 9y ago
  It’s way harder to leave than it was to refrain from joining. Another major factor is that Americans mostly see themselves as citizens of the USA first, and citizens of their state a distant second.