Idea: 10 biggest states get 3 senators
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 21, 2021, 02:28:03 PM

  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 2910 times)
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,026


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: 7,029
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: 15,296
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: 16,352
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
Tsaiite
Blairite
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,357
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: 7,029
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: 21,013
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: 1,063
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.39, S: -6.70


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
Charity be my guide
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,282
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, 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
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 347


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: 87


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: 1,628
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: 8,443
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: 1,504
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
tack50
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,881
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: 27,259


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
US Senator Michael Bennet from the State of Colorado
Forumlurker161
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,480


P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 23, 2021, 12:48:48 AM »

Even better, nationalize all senate elections from here on out.
Steve Daines isnít getting anywhere now.
Logged
terkeypie
Rookie
**
Posts: 17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 02, 2021, 03:29:43 PM »

No this would destroy the power of smaller states
Logged
Flyersfan232
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,109


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 09, 2021, 06:48:47 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?
no
Logged
PizzaGaetz
Fubart Solman
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,032
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 19, 2021, 01:09:00 AM »

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 isnít too different from today so as to get support from smaller states.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,213
Nepal


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 05, 2021, 08:32:50 PM »
« Edited: April 05, 2021, 08:40:58 PM by TDAS04 »

The Constitution wonít 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.
Logged
Lent Marslink
Patrick97
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,878
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 06, 2021, 06:57:28 PM »

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. 
Logged
Mitch O'Donnell, Mayor of Louisville
theflyingmongoose
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 382
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.41, S: -1.29

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 09, 2021, 06:46:46 PM »

In my opinion, the top 10 states should have 3, but the smallest states get one.
Logged
Maik Otter
Rookie
**
Posts: 23
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 15, 2021, 04:45:43 PM »

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 Stšnderate 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 Bundesršte each.
Logged
John Adams
CraneHusband
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,467
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -8.14, S: -2.22

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 17, 2021, 11:13:14 AM »

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.
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 0.058 seconds with 13 queries.