Poor Logic in Redistricting

[Beet]

In order to have proportional representation in the Senate without redistricting, we will have to give some Senators more power than others.

[Beet]

I see no reason why that is an issue. Please, explain.

Well no matter what boundaries you draw, their populations will eventually become uneven. You then have two options, either to redistrict, or to allow an unequal situation to develop. One District may have twice the population as another. In this case people may not even want to register in their own home states. I feel this would be a bad thing. The only way to remedy without redistricting would be to diversify Senators' power.

[Beet]

I see no reason why that is an issue. Please, explain.

Well no matter what boundaries you draw, their populations will eventually become uneven. You then have two options, either to redistrict, or to allow an unequal situation to develop. One District may have twice the population as another. In this case people may not even want to register in their own home states. I feel this would be a bad thing. The only way to remedy without redistricting would be to diversify Senators' power.

EXACTLY. However, I disagree with your solution. So what if it's uneven? That happens in the US anyway. If certain regions are small and others are large, so be it. That's what happens. We shouldn't worry about equal representation.

It would probably be best, seeing the small population, to remove districts all together rather than making all these districts. We could still have senators, but it would be more like a parliament. In others, for ever ten or so people, we'll have a senator or parliamentary member.

As for governors, we could keep the regions OR districts (whatever), and have a governor per region.

So, people will have to divide themselves into groups of 10 and each elect a senator, so we won't have a set number of senators? This is interesting but it could get chaotic. One compromise might just be to move redistricting back to 10 months.