|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 16, 2021, 07:03:02 AM
News: Chaos in the capitol: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=422360

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  Idea: 10 biggest states get 3 senators
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Idea: 10 biggest states get 3 senators  (Read 1696 times)
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 398


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 27, 2020, 07:13:40 PM »

By 2040, 70% of Americans will live in 15 states giving them 30 senators. 30% of the population will have 70% of senators.

In 2040, 9 states will have 50% of the population!

My idea is allowing the 10 biggest states to have 3 senators. This would give a more power to a larger slice of the electorate.

The 10 biggest states are California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, and Georgia, North Carolina, and Michigan.

With the current political climate,  3 would go to Democrats, 3 would go to Republicans, and 4 would be from swing states. So no party would lose seats.

Thoughts?
Logged
Skill and Chance
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,658
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2020, 08:54:33 PM »

It's an interesting idea, but wasn't this population metric even more skewed toward VA/PA/MA/NY vs. the other 9 states at the Founding? 
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,997
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2020, 01:54:44 PM »

A constitutional amendment that increases the Senate representation of only some states would require the unanimous consent of every state legislature, so it's obviously not gonna happen since that would mean smaller states voting to ratify an amendment that would decrease the relative political power of their state. I'd love to see all of the states be given 3 senators, though, so that every state would hold a Senate election every 2 years, which might - just might - make the Senate a bit more reflective of the current national mood. And it would only require the ratification of 3/4ths of the states to boot.
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,182
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: -5.20


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2020, 02:33:26 PM »

Not a bad idea, but I'd prefer a constitutional amendment to elect 100 or 120 senators district-wise, similar to state senates. However, the districts should be drawn by an independent and non-partisan commission and not by the politicians themselves. Same in the House.
Logged
Blairite
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,657
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 30, 2020, 02:36:23 PM »

It's even more arbitrary than the current system. Not a fan.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,658
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2020, 05:52:03 PM »

It's even more arbitrary than the current system. Not a fan.

Yes.  Consider a world where the majority of the US population lives in CA and TX.  This system does next to nothing to mitigate that. 
Logged
Progressive Pessimist
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,166
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -7.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2020, 07:46:29 PM »

It sucks that my state is the 11th biggest. Still, it's at least somewhat better than our current asinine system. Maybe we can also make it so that the ten least populated only get one Senator?
Logged
Stuart98
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 839
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.39, S: -6.70

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2021, 11:37:25 PM »

If you have the political capital to do this, why not go all out? I fail to see the point of any half-measure that takes a constitutional amendment.
Logged
Metallica Christian
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,985
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2021, 04:17:10 PM »

It's even more arbitrary than the current system. Not a fan.

This. And, of course, it's never going to happen.
Logged
LtNOWIS
Rookie
**
Posts: 202


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2021, 09:48:09 PM »

If you have the political capital to do this, why not go all out? I fail to see the point of any half-measure that takes a constitutional amendment.
It can't even be done with a normal constitutional amendment. The constitution says you can't amend the constitution to deprive states of their equal representation in the Senate without their consent.

It'd be easier to change the Senate to something mostly ceremonial like the British House of Lords.
Logged
Casedemic
BeastCoast
Rookie
**
Posts: 82


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2021, 10:56:50 PM »

Opposed because this idea sounds ridiculous. I'd be more in favor of abolishing the Senate, which I'm against.
Logged
Arachno-Statism
Anarcho-Statism
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,446
Korea, Democratic People's Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: 1.22

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 06, 2021, 05:25:45 PM »

Kinda defeats the point of the Senate. If you're going to put in that amount of effort, just abolish it.
Logged
Hammy
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,913
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 09, 2021, 12:06:52 AM »

Kinda defeats the point of the Senate. If you're going to put in that amount of effort, just abolish it.

Honestly that'd be my preferred option, even vs keeping it as-is.
Logged
The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow
slightlyburnttoast
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,369
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.42, S: -5.43

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 12, 2021, 05:45:41 PM »

It's an interesting idea, but wasn't this population metric even more skewed toward VA/PA/MA/NY vs. the other 9 states at the Founding? 

1790 census:
Virginia (largest state): 748k people
Rhode Island (smallest state): 69k people
ratio: 10.84 to 1

2010 census:
California (largest state): 37.25 mil
Wyoming (smallest state): 564k
ratio: 66.05 to 1
Logged
Senator tack50 (Lab-Lincoln)
tack50
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,841
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 14, 2021, 12:09:02 PM »

It's a bit arbitrary, though the idea definitely makes sense.

My counterproposal would be for the 33% of most populated states to get 3 Senators, the middle 34% to get 2 senators and the final 33% to get 1 senator.

Of course, the US constitution makes it outright impossible to make states unequal in the Senate so it's not happening.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,011


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2021, 12:12:57 PM »

Unconstitutional. The Democrats need to stop fantasizing about these weird pie-in-the-sky ideas and focus more on what legal channels they do have to improve representation.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.046 seconds with 12 queries.