Senators in a Slightly More Equal Senate

[Orser67]

Inspired somewhat by another thread, I wanted to take a look at a Senate in which:
-The 17 most populous states (CA, TX, FL, NY, PA, IL, OH, GA, NC, MI, NJ, VA, WA, AZ, MA, TN, IN) get three seats
-The 16 middle states (MO, MD, WI, CO, MN, SC, AL, LA, KY, OR, OK, CT, IA, UT, AR, NV) still have two seats
-The 17 least populous states (MS, KS, NM, NE, WV, ID, HI, NH, ME, RI, MT, DE, ND, SD, AK, VT, WY) get one seat.

I'm not going to take a deep historical what-if look here, and I'm not going to make sure that the classes are balanced, though each state will only have either one or zero senators in each class. I thought about which party would win specific senate elections, but didn't spend too much time thinking about who would have been nominated by said party. For states that lost seats, I kept the most senior senator. This slightly benefited Democrats since they lost a seat in ME but Republicans lost seats in MT and WV.

AL: Richard Shelby and Doug Jones
AK: Lisa Murkowksi
AZ: Kyrsten Sinema, Martha McSally, and David Schweikert (elected in 2014)
AR: John Boozman and Tom Cotton
CA: Dianne Feinstein, Kamala Harris, and Loretta Sanchez (elected in 2014)
CO: Michael Bennett and Cory Gardner
CT: Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy
DE: Tom Carper
FL: Marco Rubio, Rick Scott, and Adam Putnam (elected in 2014)
GA: Johnny Isakson, David Perdue, and Jack Kingston (elected in 2018)
HI: Brian Schatz
ID: Mike Crapo
IL: Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth, and Chris Kennedy (elected in 2018)
IN: Todd Young, Mike Braun, and Marlin Stutzman (elected in 2014)
IA: Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst
KS: Pat Roberts
KY: Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul
LA: Bill Cassidy and John Kennedy
ME: Susan Collins
MD: Ben Cardin and Chris Van Hollen
MA: Elizabeth Warren, Ed Markey, and Joe Kennedy (elected in 2016)
MI: Debbie Stabenow, Gary Peters, and Fred Upton (elected in 2016)
MN: Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith
MS: Roger Wicker
MO: Roy Blunt and Josh Hawley
MT: Jon Tester
NE: Deb Fischer
NV: Catherine Cortez Masto and Jackie Rosen
NH: Jeanne Shaheen
NJ: Bob Menendez, Cory Booker, and Frank Pallone (elected in 2016)
NM: Tom Udall
NY: Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Carolyn Maloney (elected in 2014)
NC: Richard Burr, Thom Tillis, and Jeff Jackson (elected in 2018)
ND: John Hoeven
OH: Sherrod Brown, Rob Portman, and Josh Mandel (elected in 2014)
OK: Jim Inhofe and James Lankford
OR: Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley
PA: Bob Casey, Pat Toomey, and Charlie Dent (elected in 2014)
RI: Jack Reed
SC: Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott
SD: John Thune
TN: Lamar Alexander, Marsha Blackburn, and Bill Haslam (elected in 2016)
TX: John Cornyn, Ted Cruz, and George P. Bush (elected in 2016)
UT: Mike Lee and Mitt Romney
VT: Patrick Leahy
VA: Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, and Mark Herring (elected in 2016)
WA: Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, and Christine Gregoire (elected in 2014)
WV: Joe Manchin
WI: Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin
WY: Mike Enzi

Under this alignment, there are 52 Republicans and 48 Democrats (vs the current 53-47 split), and Democrats would have a better chance of taking the Senate in 2020 due to new targets in AZ, FL, and PA

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I think Democrats would have won the 2014 Pennsylvania Senate seat and the 2016 Michigan Senate seat in this scenario, though both admittedly could have gone either way.

[muon2]

Chris Kennedy was unlikely to be the IL Dem nominee in 2018, much less the winner. He wasn't an effective campaigner for Gov, and with the deep Dem bench there are many others with electoral experience and political machinery (Biss, Mendoza, Frerichs, Kelly, Hutchinson, etc.) who'd be more likely to succeed.

[jimrtex]

Inspired somewhat by another thread, I wanted to take a look at a Senate in which:
-The 17 most populous states (CA, TX, FL, NY, PA, IL, OH, GA, NC, MI, NJ, VA, WA, AZ, MA, TN, IN) get three seats
-The 16 middle states (MO, MD, WI, CO, MN, SC, AL, LA, KY, OR, OK, CT, IA, UT, AR, NV) still have two seats
-The 17 least populous states (MS, KS, NM, NE, WV, ID, HI, NH, ME, RI, MT, DE, ND, SD, AK, VT, WY) get one seat.

Rather than an arbitrary division, I looked at a mild apportionment based on population. Each state would be guaranteed one senator, with a cap of 3 senators. Apportionment would be based on Adams method which has a small state bias.

In 1960 the 17 most populous states, NY, CA, PA, IL, OH, TX, MI, NJ, MA, FL, IN, NC, MO, VA, WI, GA, and TN would have 3 senators.

The 16 next most populous states of MN, AL, LA, MD, KY, WA, IA, CT, SC, OK, KS, MS, WV, AR, OR, and CO would have two senators. OR and CO would have gained their second senator because of the four senators added when HI and AK joined the Union.

The 17 least populous states of NE, AZ, ME, NM, UT, RI, SD, MT, ID, HI, ND, NH, DE, VT, WY, NV, and AK would have the minimum of 1 senator.

In 1970, MD gained a 3rd senator at the expense of WV which dropped to 1. WV had a population drop and fell below 3 states, while MD had strong suburban growth from DC. This changed the distribution to 18-14-18.

In 1980, AZ gained a 2nd senator, as MD dropped back to two. The distribution reverted back to 17-16-17.

In 1990, WA gained a 3rd senator, while AR dropped to one. For WA to gain a 3rd senator over AR second, it has to have double the population. The distribution returned to 18-14-18.

There was no change in 2000.

In 2010, AZ gained its 3rd senator, as WI dropped to 2, and AR gained a 2nd at the expense of Kansas, which dropped to one. Both changes were due to ranking changes at the distribution edges. The distribution remained 18-14-18.

For 2010, CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, GA, NC, NJ, VA, WA, MA, IN, AZ, TN, and MO will have 3 senators.

MD, WI, MN, CO, AL, SC, LA, KY, OR, OK, CT, IA, MS, and AR will have two senators.

KS, UT, NV, NM, WV, NE, ID, HI. ME. NH, RI, MT, DE, SD, AK, ND, VT, and WY will have one senator.

You evidently used recent estimates, which gave UT and NV their second senator. They will gain the second in 2020. Which two lose, will depend on the order of IA, MS, and AR, and whether MO continues to have twice the population of at least two of those three.

Longer term, CO may gain its 3rd senator in 2030 or 2040, this would be at the expense of MA, IN or TN.

[jamestroll]

We must abolish the United States Senate it is fundamentally unfair.

My ideal system of government for the United States would be a parliamentary system elected every four who would choose the leaders.

In the midterms voters would choose their Attorney General and Secretary of State however by direct popular vote. It is literally a conflict of interest to have our chief law enforcement officer to be selected by the President and confirmed by an undemocratic Senate.

[muon2]

We must abolish the United States Senate it is fundamentally unfair.

My ideal system of government for the United States would be a parliamentary system elected every four who would choose the leaders.

In the midterms voters would choose their Attorney General and Secretary of State however by direct popular vote. It is literally a conflict of interest to have our chief law enforcement officer to be selected by the President and confirmed by an undemocratic Senate.

But that would result in no direct election of the executive. There would still be the issue of electing an executive who lost the popular vote. If it's about democratic fairness, wouldn't you change that, too?