3 ms·

The senate's structure made sense at the time of the country's founding, when people thought of themselves as citizens of their state first, and citizens of the

The senate's structure made sense at the time of the country's founding, when people thought of themselves as citizens of their state first, and citizens of their (very recent) country second. But that hasn't been true for at least decades now, and thus the Senate is rather anti-democratic. People shouldn't have more or less voting power just because of where they live in the US.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> The senate's structure made sense at the time of the country's founding, Sure, when the question of “how do we make sure the slave states, who have smaller population and even smaller yet free, voting populations than the free states, are able to protect the institution of slavery” was current, all of the structure of the Senate, it's mirror in the electoral college, and the 3/5 compromise for the House made sense.
- aaron-lebo 8y ago
  The Virginia Plan (also known as the Randolph Plan, after its sponsor, or the Large-State Plan) was a proposal by Virginia delegates for a bicameral legislative branch.[1] The plan was drafted by James Madison while he waited for a quorum to assemble at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.[2][3] The Virginia Plan was notable for its role in setting the overall agenda for debate in the convention and, in particular, for setting forth the idea of population-weighted representation in the proposed national legislature. Quoting this because it's important to note it's not nearly as simple as that. Virginia was the largest state (and largest slaveholding state).
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    Yes, but looking at the larger picture, the tidewater aristocracy's interests were protected by the disproportionate power given to the South up till the Civil War, so I think the claim you're responding to is compelling.
    - aaron-lebo 8y ago
      Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia voted for the Virginia Plan, while New York, New Jersey, and Delaware voted for the New Jersey Plan, an alternate that was also on the table. The delegates from Maryland were split, so the state's vote was null. It's pretty evenly split. It's difficult to suggest it's all or mostly about slavery. It may be compelling but claims like that need evidence, and when you pull in the evidence it's not so convincing.
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        Certainly for a state like Connecticut it was more about preserving the influence of a smaller state, but why would Virginia throw its support behind a plan that would seem to weaken its own influence? That's a question worth asking (and honestly I don't know enough about the views of all the individual delegates to answer it). And in reality the plan did benefit slaveholder interests -- certainly by the time Southerners were trying to conquer every piece of Latin American territory they could get their hands on to increase the slave vote they were conscious of these dynamics.
        ameister14 8y ago
        Virginia threw its support behind this plan because it was the best possible constitutional plan available. Madison was pushing for a stronger National government at the time but being blocked, and as a part of that national government, he was advocating the Senate have the ability to essentially veto state laws - remember that there was no Judicial Review in the system at the time. So for the Senate to have that power, they needed to have equal representation from each state otherwise populous states would have too much influence on the internal government of other states. That's part of it, anyway. It's more complicated and I'd recommend you read Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention if you're really curious.
        aaron-lebo 8y ago
        Certainly for a state like Connecticut it was more about preserving the influence of a smaller state, but why would Virginia throw its support behind a plan that would seem to weaken its own influence? Because while they were aware of that, there was more at play than racism and slavery, as Virginia voting against its interests suggests. Slightly pedantic, I could be wrong, but no serious attempts were ever made to conquer south; less than the attempts to conquer Canada, anyway. History is complex!
mikeash 8y ago
It’s also worth remembering that the people who designed the Constitution had to actually convince the various states to join in and accept the end result. There may have been a better way to structure the resulting nation, but if too many states didn’t like it then you wouldn’t have a nation in the first place.
emodendroket 8y ago
The Senate exists largely because smaller states' representatives at the Constitutional Convention wanted it to and because the US government was essentially a copy-and-paste job of the British one with an elected president in place of the king. I think it would be a mistake to attribute that much unique suitability, even in an 18th-Century context, to it.
sp332 8y ago
And it's been getting worse as the population concentrates into fewer states, giving those people relatively less and less representation in the Senate.
- mrguyorama 8y ago
  That's a feature by some people's opinion

dragonwriter 8y ago

> The senate's structure made sense at the time of the country's founding, Sure, when the question of “how do we make sure the slave states, who have smaller population and even smaller yet free, voting populations than the free states, are able to protect the institution of slavery” was current, all of the structure of the Senate, it's mirror in the electoral college, and the 3/5 compromise for the House made sense.

aaron-lebo 8y ago
The Virginia Plan (also known as the Randolph Plan, after its sponsor, or the Large-State Plan) was a proposal by Virginia delegates for a bicameral legislative branch.[1] The plan was drafted by James Madison while he waited for a quorum to assemble at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.[2][3] The Virginia Plan was notable for its role in setting the overall agenda for debate in the convention and, in particular, for setting forth the idea of population-weighted representation in the proposed national legislature. Quoting this because it's important to note it's not nearly as simple as that. Virginia was the largest state (and largest slaveholding state).
- emodendroket 8y ago
  Yes, but looking at the larger picture, the tidewater aristocracy's interests were protected by the disproportionate power given to the South up till the Civil War, so I think the claim you're responding to is compelling.
  - aaron-lebo 8y ago
    Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia voted for the Virginia Plan, while New York, New Jersey, and Delaware voted for the New Jersey Plan, an alternate that was also on the table. The delegates from Maryland were split, so the state's vote was null. It's pretty evenly split. It's difficult to suggest it's all or mostly about slavery. It may be compelling but claims like that need evidence, and when you pull in the evidence it's not so convincing.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      Certainly for a state like Connecticut it was more about preserving the influence of a smaller state, but why would Virginia throw its support behind a plan that would seem to weaken its own influence? That's a question worth asking (and honestly I don't know enough about the views of all the individual delegates to answer it). And in reality the plan did benefit slaveholder interests -- certainly by the time Southerners were trying to conquer every piece of Latin American territory they could get their hands on to increase the slave vote they were conscious of these dynamics.
      - ameister14 8y ago
        Virginia threw its support behind this plan because it was the best possible constitutional plan available. Madison was pushing for a stronger National government at the time but being blocked, and as a part of that national government, he was advocating the Senate have the ability to essentially veto state laws - remember that there was no Judicial Review in the system at the time. So for the Senate to have that power, they needed to have equal representation from each state otherwise populous states would have too much influence on the internal government of other states. That's part of it, anyway. It's more complicated and I'd recommend you read Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention if you're really curious.
      - aaron-lebo 8y ago
        Certainly for a state like Connecticut it was more about preserving the influence of a smaller state, but why would Virginia throw its support behind a plan that would seem to weaken its own influence? Because while they were aware of that, there was more at play than racism and slavery, as Virginia voting against its interests suggests. Slightly pedantic, I could be wrong, but no serious attempts were ever made to conquer south; less than the attempts to conquer Canada, anyway. History is complex!

mikeash 8y ago

It’s also worth remembering that the people who designed the Constitution had to actually convince the various states to join in and accept the end result. There may have been a better way to structure the resulting nation, but if too many states didn’t like it then you wouldn’t have a nation in the first place.

emodendroket 8y ago

The Senate exists largely because smaller states' representatives at the Constitutional Convention wanted it to and because the US government was essentially a copy-and-paste job of the British one with an elected president in place of the king. I think it would be a mistake to attribute that much unique suitability, even in an 18th-Century context, to it.

sp332 8y ago

And it's been getting worse as the population concentrates into fewer states, giving those people relatively less and less representation in the Senate.

mrguyorama 8y ago
That's a feature by some people's opinion