g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 125,228
- 68,944
- 2,605
- Thread starter
- #21
That we give states with small populations the same number of Senators as states with large populations is enough pandering to the rural populations. No need to make it worse. Rural people are nothing special; they deserve no special treatment.
Perhaps you should read Federalist No. 62.
Let's do a thought experiment.
Imagine all the urban dwellers in American were concentrated in one state, which I shall call Eschaton. And let's say they make up 52% of the entire population of the country.
Without the 17th Amendment, that would mean 49 percent of the population would send 98 Republican Senators to Washington while the great state of Eschaton would send just 2.
That is some serious overweightage of rural voters!
But down in the humble House, thanks to districting based on population, there are 226 Democratic Representatives and 208 Republicans.
The 49 rural states would have a hard time screwing over the state of Eschaton, thanks to the Democratic majority in the House.
On the flip side, let's go with the popular vote, and send 52 Democrats and 48 Republicans to the Senate.
Now a single state could fuck over the other 49 since it controls both houses of Congress.
How is that fair?
Last edited: