Idea: 10 biggest states get 3 senators

[Motorcity]

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?

[Skill and Chance]

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? 

[brucejoel99]

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.

[President Johnson]

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.

[Blairite]

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

[Skill and Chance]

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. 

[Progressive Pessimist]

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?

[Stuart98]

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.

[Popery At The White House]

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

This. And, of course, it's never going to happen.

[LtNOWIS]

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.

[Casedemic]

Opposed because this idea sounds ridiculous. I'd be more in favor of abolishing the Senate, which I'm against.

[Arachno-Statism]

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

[Hammy]

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.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

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

[Senator tack50 (Lab-Lincoln)]

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.

[Beet]

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.