Could states ever be deprived of equal representation in the Senate?

[Figueira]

Amend the Constitution to eliminate all of the Senate's powers and either (a) become a unicameral system or (b) create a new body called, I dunno, the Legislative Council that does exactly what the Senate used to do, but is elected using your personal favorite form of population-based representation.

Of course, that would never pass in 38 states, but at least it gets around the Article V problem.

[zoz]

I don't understand the point of making the Senate represented based on population; that's why we have the House.

[brucejoel99]

I don't understand the point of making the Senate represented based on population; that's why we have the House.

Because many people don't like non-people (resources & farmland) having voices in government. When the most populous state has 68 times as many people as the smallest state, yet somehow still has the same amount of representation, that might be a bit of a problem for a country that claims to be a "representative democracy."

Remember: "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests" - Chief Justice Earl Warren.

[Del Tachi]

The larger, more urban states have such an advantage (not just in the House and presidential elections, but also in in the media) that the Senate is a necessary counterweight.  Federally dependent states like New Mexico and Mississippi need somewhere they can stand on equal footing with Texas or California.

[brucejoel99]

The larger, more urban states have such an advantage (not just in the House and presidential elections, but also in in the media) that the Senate is a necessary counterweight.  Federally dependent states like New Mexico and Mississippi need somewhere they can stand on equal footing with Texas or California.

That only makes some kind of sense pre-17th Amendment. When Senators were elected by state legislatures, that meant that their constituency was the state government rather than the people of a given state. That was the purpose of the Senate: to give state governments direct representation within the federal government. I'm not gonna argue that it worked all that well, but at least it was a coherent rationale.

Directly electing Senators completely eliminated that rationale, though, by transforming the Senate from a body representing separate sovereigns into an unrepresentative direct legislature. And if we claim to live in a representative democracy, then we ought to uphold the main tenet thereof, which it lives or dies by: the idea that 1 person gets 1 vote & that all votes are of the same value.

[Del Tachi]

The larger, more urban states have such an advantage (not just in the House and presidential elections, but also in in the media) that the Senate is a necessary counterweight.  Federally dependent states like New Mexico and Mississippi need somewhere they can stand on equal footing with Texas or California.

That only makes some kind of sense pre-17th Amendment. When Senators were elected by state legislatures, that meant that their constituency was the state government rather than the people of a given state. That was the purpose of the Senate: to give state governments direct representation within the federal government. I'm not gonna argue that it worked all that well, but at least it was a coherent rationale.

Directly electing Senators completely eliminated that rationale, though, by transforming the Senate from a body representing separate sovereigns into an unrepresentative direct legislature. And if we claim to live in a representative democracy, then we ought to uphold the main tenet thereof, which it lives or dies by: the idea that 1 person gets 1 vote & that all votes are of the same value.

Of course, there's no theoretical reason why private citizen electors are incapable of representing a State's sovereign interest.  The States, each a coequal part of the Union, are themselves only comprised of their respective citizens.  When Senators were elected by state legislatures, that meant their constituency was the State as represented by the legislature; now, Senators' constituencies are their respective States as represented by the citizens thereof. 

Functionally, the traditions and rules of the Senate still operate to advance State's sovereign interests (i.e., the Senatorial courtesy, unlimited debate, etc.).  A Senate with the same standing rules and procedures as the House would indeed be redundant, but individual Senators (who act as agents of their respective States) are afforded much more leeway and independence.   

[Mr. Reactionary]

The larger, more urban states have such an advantage (not just in the House and presidential elections, but also in in the media) that the Senate is a necessary counterweight.  Federally dependent states like New Mexico and Mississippi need somewhere they can stand on equal footing with Texas or California.

That only makes some kind of sense pre-17th Amendment. When Senators were elected by state legislatures, that meant that their constituency was the state government rather than the people of a given state. That was the purpose of the Senate: to give state governments direct representation within the federal government. I'm not gonna argue that it worked all that well, but at least it was a coherent rationale.

Directly electing Senators completely eliminated that rationale, though, by transforming the Senate from a body representing separate sovereigns into an unrepresentative direct legislature. And if we claim to live in a representative democracy, then we ought to uphold the main tenet thereof, which it lives or dies by: the idea that 1 person gets 1 vote & that all votes are of the same value.

So we should repeal the 17th amendment, not abolish one of the most important checks on tyrannical power.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

The larger, more urban states have such an advantage (not just in the House and presidential elections, but also in in the media) that the Senate is a necessary counterweight.  Federally dependent states like New Mexico and Mississippi need somewhere they can stand on equal footing with Texas or California.

That only makes some kind of sense pre-17th Amendment. When Senators were elected by state legislatures, that meant that their constituency was the state government rather than the people of a given state. That was the purpose of the Senate: to give state governments direct representation within the federal government. I'm not gonna argue that it worked all that well, but at least it was a coherent rationale.

Directly electing Senators completely eliminated that rationale, though, by transforming the Senate from a body representing separate sovereigns into an unrepresentative direct legislature. And if we claim to live in a representative democracy, then we ought to uphold the main tenet thereof, which it lives or dies by: the idea that 1 person gets 1 vote & that all votes are of the same value.

So we should repeal the 17th amendment, not abolish one of the most important checks on tyrannical power.

In no ways does the US Senate check tyrannical power. Infact, the Senate is the tyrannical power here.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

The basic indisputable fact that makes the Senates existence unjustified is that there is nothing truly special or meaningful to the unit of a state to makes them concise or equal units in any way.