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.

[Tsaiite]

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.

[Charity be my guide]

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

[tack50]

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.

[US Senator Michael Bennet from the State of Colorado]

Even better, nationalize all senate elections from here on out.
Steve Daines isn’t getting anywhere now.

[terkeypie]

No this would destroy the power of smaller states

[Flyersfan232]

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?

no

[PizzaGaetz]

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.

Glad to see someone shares this idea! I think that it would go well with an expansion of the House, so the overall electoral college balance between large and small states isn’t too different from today so as to get support from smaller states.

[TDAS04]

The Constitution won’t allow it, it defeats the purpose of the Senate (equal representation of the states), and it would do no good for the 11th and 12th most populous states.  No point.

[Lent Marslink]

The best solution for the Senate is if they forgo per state method and 50 equal population districts across the countries that get 2 senators. States are too lopsided in population to all have equal represenation. 

[Mitch O'Donnell, Mayor of Louisville]

In my opinion, the top 10 states should have 3, but the smallest states get one.

[Maik Otter]

In Switzerland the Council of States (46) is mostly modelled after the US Senate (100) ...

but Cantones that haven been splitted, like Basilea, Unterwalden und Appenzell, usually have 2 Ständerate in sum (BS 1; BL 1; OW 1; NW 1; AI 1; AR 1)

but
BE 2; JU 2,

while
ND, SD
VA, WV, KY
ME, NH
have 2 Senators each!

In Germanys Federal Council (69) every of the 16 states has 3 to 6 block votes each.

In Austrias Federal Council (64) every of 9 states has 3 to 12 Bundesräte each.

[John Adams]

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

Just goes to show how comical it is to apply our 18th century constitution to a 21st century country.