3 ms·
>> Is there not any wisdom to giving rural areas a counterweight to heavily populated urban areas? > The founders thought so. It's called the US Senate. No, t
by _chris_ 6y ago
>> Is there not any wisdom to giving rural areas a counterweight to heavily populated urban areas?
> The founders thought so. It's called the US Senate.
No, they were trying throw a bone to states like Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Jersey, which were land-locked out of Western expansion. It was the more 'rural' states that actually preferred to balance Congressional power on population.
[ed: As the more rural states saw their own populations likely to increase over time. The Senate's existence had absolutely nothing to do about balancing rural vs urban interests].
- nobody9999 6y ago>>>>> Is there not any wisdom to giving rural areas a counterweight to heavily populated urban areas? As GP said above -- a counterweight to to heavily populated areas. Which the more rural areas were at the time. The more rural states (like Virginia at the time) had most of the population, which is why they preferred representation based on population. The argument was one of population (whether current or expected), as writings by all involved in it will tell you explicitly. Regardless, the US Senate was created with two senators from each state provided equal representation to each state in that house. Which was and still is, a counterweight to heavily populated areas. Rural or urban really doesn't make a difference. Edit: Clarified rural vs. urban importance WRT US Senate representation.
- spoonjim 6y agoAmending the Constitution is functionally impossible but adding states is very easy. The Senate is gravely tilted towards Republicans so at the present moment where Donald Trump has handed the Senate to Democrats, they must add as many states as possible. Maybe they can get to 25.