4 ms·

It's not over-representation, as the senate was never supposed to represent citizens, it was supposed to represent the states. At the time of the declaration of

by nickff 5y ago

It's not over-representation, as the senate was never supposed to represent citizens, it was supposed to represent the states. At the time of the declaration of independence, there were some states much larger than others; Virginia had a population of ~747k, and Delaware was at ~59k.

taylorfinley 5y ago
I certainly agree that this disparity exists by-design. We can disagree on the word used to describe it, but the fact remains: For every person in a state represented by a senator's vote in the Dakotas, there is nearly 50 people in the state of California. This is ~400% the disparity you cite between Delaware and Virginia. Certainly that growth in disparity is not entirely unforeseeable by the founders. The system is functioning as intended. My point was that you aren't likely to get people to voluntarily choose to have less power.
pseudalopex 5y ago
State governments are supposed to represent the people of the state. The people who designed the system just didn't trust the masses. And people can disagree with the design.
Imnimo 5y ago
Okay, but the division of the Dakota Territory into two states was done, at least in part, to game the system and secure more seats for the 1870s Republican party. It's not just a matter of "well, there turned out to be two states, and so they just happen to get two sets of representatives and senators" - the causal arrow points in the other direction.
wbsss4412 5y ago
The senate was also originally chosen by the state legislatures, the federal government wasn’t able to levy income taxes, DC wasn’t given federal representation, etc. It can both be true that the senate was “designed” to represent different interests and at the same time we can critique it and say that certain states are “over represented” as the society the senate was originally designed for no longer exists. we have different needs and values than we did in 1789 and the system we live under today is already radically different than the one that existed in say 1800.
8note 5y ago
That would make sense if senators were appointed by state governors and not by by elections. Really, Senate representation is set up to uphold the status quo on slavery. It's supposed toaesre that the free states cant outlaw slavery, and so that slave states cant change the due date for when slavery would stop. Today's representation carries that legacy, where new states are not allowed unless they preserve the status quo.
- nickff 5y ago
  >"Really, Senate representation is set up to uphold the status quo on slavery. It's supposed toaesre that the free states cant outlaw slavery, and so that slave states cant change the due date for when slavery would stop." Senate representation was one of many bulwarks against majoritarianism, which was one of the founders' principal concerns, for a variety of reasons.

by nickff 5y ago

taylorfinley 5y ago

I certainly agree that this disparity exists by-design. We can disagree on the word used to describe it, but the fact remains: For every person in a state represented by a senator's vote in the Dakotas, there is nearly 50 people in the state of California. This is ~400% the disparity you cite between Delaware and Virginia. Certainly that growth in disparity is not entirely unforeseeable by the founders. The system is functioning as intended. My point was that you aren't likely to get people to voluntarily choose to have less power.

pseudalopex 5y ago

State governments are supposed to represent the people of the state. The people who designed the system just didn't trust the masses. And people can disagree with the design.

Imnimo 5y ago

Okay, but the division of the Dakota Territory into two states was done, at least in part, to game the system and secure more seats for the 1870s Republican party. It's not just a matter of "well, there turned out to be two states, and so they just happen to get two sets of representatives and senators" - the causal arrow points in the other direction.

wbsss4412 5y ago

The senate was also originally chosen by the state legislatures, the federal government wasn’t able to levy income taxes, DC wasn’t given federal representation, etc. It can both be true that the senate was “designed” to represent different interests and at the same time we can critique it and say that certain states are “over represented” as the society the senate was originally designed for no longer exists. we have different needs and values than we did in 1789 and the system we live under today is already radically different than the one that existed in say 1800.

8note 5y ago

That would make sense if senators were appointed by state governors and not by by elections. Really, Senate representation is set up to uphold the status quo on slavery. It's supposed toaesre that the free states cant outlaw slavery, and so that slave states cant change the due date for when slavery would stop. Today's representation carries that legacy, where new states are not allowed unless they preserve the status quo.

nickff 5y ago
>"Really, Senate representation is set up to uphold the status quo on slavery. It's supposed toaesre that the free states cant outlaw slavery, and so that slave states cant change the due date for when slavery would stop." Senate representation was one of many bulwarks against majoritarianism, which was one of the founders' principal concerns, for a variety of reasons.