5 ms·
Why stop there? Why do small states get the same number of Senators as large states? All the Senators should just be from California, Texas, New York, and Flo
by VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
Why stop there? Why do small states get the same number of Senators as large states? All the Senators should just be from California, Texas, New York, and Florida.
- dhosek 6y agoThe small states getting the same number of senators as large states is partly a legacy of slavery. Interestingly, the constitution explicitly prohibits the 2-senators-per-state rule from being amended away (Article V).
- IgorPartola 6y agoCan you amend that prohibition?
- dhosek 6y agoGood question. If you want to get into the weeds, there are a couple articles worth looking at: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/PROJECTS/FTRIALS/CONLAW/unamendable.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/PROJECTS/FTRIALS/CONLAW/unamend... https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5293&context=mulr https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...
- VWWHFSfQ 6y agoThe short answer is yes. The long answer is that the Supreme Court would have to get involved. And they are very reluctant to make any kind of new interpretation of the Constitution for something like this.
- dragonwriter 6y agoAny answer to the question would be a new interpretation, since the clause hasn’t previously been litigated. But you can clearly amend the powers of the Senate, including abolishing all of them. And/or create a third house of Congress, without equal per-state representation.
- VWWHFSfQ 6y agoI mean, it's fun to think about at a purely theoretical/academic level. But practically speaking, none of this could ever happen.
- dragonwriter 6y agoI wouldn’t be so sure; it would require getting states to vote against their narrow parochial interests, but it's not inconceivable that it could happen. It would probably take a crisis of legitimacy in which the disaffection of the underrepresented states was sufficient to threaten the viability of the union, though.
- dhosek 6y agoI've imagined a workaround where states would be de-stated if they fell below a threshold percentage of the total population or be required to split if they grew above an upper bound percentage. The only reason there are two Dakotas is to give the Republicans two extra senate seats (this is true, you can look it up).
- VWWHFSfQ 6y ago> The only reason there are two Dakotas is to give the Republicans two extra senate seats First of all, you have no idea what you're talking about. The two Dakota territories gained statehood in 1889, long before there was any kind of notion of the modern-day Republican party.
- IgorPartola 6y agoI know you are trying to be sarcastic but you are correct. There is zero reason for the Senate to work the way it does as it is very clearly an unfair system. Instead, Senators should be nationally elected: 100 spots and every voter votes on every one of them.
- VWWHFSfQ 6y ago> 100 spots and every voter votes on every one of them So then all the Senators should just be from California, Texas, New York, and Florida.
- IgorPartola 6y agoWhat would be the problem with that?