Idea: 10 biggest states get 3 senators
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:47:45 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  Idea: 10 biggest states get 3 senators
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Idea: 10 biggest states get 3 senators  (Read 16348 times)
Schiff for Senate
CentristRepublican
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,132
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2021, 05:54:22 PM »

That's a good idea, but it can be improved upon and there's no way it would become law.
It's passage would require a constitutional amendment, which only 10 state legislatures would ratify - 38 are required. Two-thirds of the legislature won't support such a bill either, since most come from one of the smaller 40 states.

What might be better is if the top 40 or 45 states be given an extra Senator, or the smallest 5-10 states have just 1 senator, because this concern is valid: the average congressional district has around 700,000 or so people, and the House is 4.35 times as large as the Senate. Yet Wyoming (population 570,000) has 2 Senators and 1 Representative, giving it a very disproportionate amount of representation. Since Wyoming has a population 1/10 of that of the average state, it makes sense for it to have just 1 Senator. Wyoming is smaller than most congressional districts (which have 1 representative in congress), but has 3 representatives in congress, making it more over-represented than most states. More preferable would be if all other states could have 3 senators (with 1 senate election in each state every even year), and Wyoming and other such states have 2 senators. In the eighteenth century, the most populated state (Virginia) was ten times as populated as the least populated state (Delaware). California today is (around) 65 times as large as Wyoming, and has 55/3 as many representatives in the House/Senate and in presidential elections.

The passage of a bill increasing the number of senators in most states to 3 might easily pass Congress. It wouldn't significantly favour either party, and it would help most states be more represented. Most people likely wouldn't complain to having more representation in Congress. The only ones who would would be people from Wyoming or other states who are stuck with 2 senators - and as this proves, those states have way less people than the other 45-49. Giving an extra senator to just 10 states would mean a majority of the population is now under-represented, and it definitely wouldn't become law (not that it's necessarily a bad idea).
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,449
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: June 02, 2021, 07:04:05 PM »

That's a good idea, but it can be improved upon and there's no way it would become law.
It's passage would require a constitutional amendment, which only 10 state legislatures would ratify - 38 are required. Two-thirds of the legislature won't support such a bill either, since most come from one of the smaller 40 states.

Unanimity among all 50 would actually be required for this particular proposed amendment.
Logged
Chips
Those Chips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,245
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: June 05, 2021, 10:05:20 PM »

I'm rather mixed on this idea.
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: June 08, 2021, 12:42:47 PM »

That defeats the purpose of the Senate, which was to give every state equal power regardless of population.
Logged
The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow
slightlyburnttoast
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,050
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.42, S: -5.43

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: June 08, 2021, 09:34:37 PM »

That defeats the purpose of the Senate, which was to give every state equal power regardless of population.

Doesn't mean that it's actually a good idea to give every state equal power regardless of population.

(Not to mention that the population disparity between the nation's smallest and largest states is much more extreme today than it was in the late 18th century.)
Logged
Non Swing Voter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,181


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: September 15, 2021, 11:40:38 PM »

Too complicated.  If you have multiple retirements you could end up with 3 senate seats up for grabs in one state in one year, maybe 3 runoffs.  It's just too much.

The better solution, which has been done in the past, would be to just break up a few of the larger states.  California being the most obvious because it's so skewed to one party and so enormous that it really screws the Democratic party's representation in the senate. 
Logged
LAKISYLVANIA
Lakigigar
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,165
Belgium


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -4.78

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: December 09, 2021, 02:30:09 AM »
« Edited: December 09, 2021, 02:40:35 AM by Laki »

Not a fan. It also means that the minority of a large state is never represented. (So like 45% of Florida doesn't matter electorally and so do 6 million republicans in California) I'm not a fan of the winner takes it all systems in such countries. It benefits some states, and other states have no influence or sh**t. I don't even understand how one state can even tolerate this sh**t. Californians should always be in favour of independence. They have no voting power and their state doesn't matter politically. They're being taken hostages by the average America that is not in line with their views, and what matters in California might not matter elsewhere.

I believe in proportional elections. D'hondt method. Maybe proportional by state (so some states would still have at large elections, the states that are too small). That could be done for the house.

Senate system need an entire overhaul, because you cannot defend this system. Perhaps abolition of the senate is the only solution, and putting more weight on the house.

No more district nonsense, no more district bullsh**t, no more gerrymandering, no more spending of 3 billion euros on one obscure district with 100.000 voters, if done right equal voting power and representation by party, demographic and even giving third parties a shot (and if not, allocate some guaranteed seats to minorities, like they do in Chile).

You'all need to realize that the political system in the US doesn't work, maybe it did work centuries ago, but it doesn't work today and especially with increased polarization this is becoming painfully clear with two parties desperate to hold power.
Logged
Death of a Salesman
Rookie
**
Posts: 238
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 15, 2022, 10:24:41 PM »

California 2020: Democratic
Texas 2016: Republican
Florida 2020: Republican
New York 2020: Democratic
Pennsylvania 2020: Tossup (probably a Republican incumbent, so I’d guess Tilt R)
Illinois 2018: Democratic
Ohio 2020: Republican
Georgia 2018: Republican (Republicans swept 2018 GA statewide races)
North Carolina 2018: Tossup (probably a Democratic incumbent, so Tilt D, but Bill Nelson went down in FL)
Michigan 2016: Republican (Republicans probably win it in 2010, and a Republican incumbent would likely win with Trump on the ticket in 2016).

Democrats would certainly have three, but I think four is more likely than 5, so this probably results in a 56-44 Republican Senate (let’s say the GOP holds PA 2020, GA 2018, and MI 2016, while losing NC 2018).
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 23, 2022, 09:39:15 AM »

The senate stays at 100. The smallest 10 states get 1 senator.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,066


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: March 29, 2022, 04:53:59 AM »

The senate stays at 100. The smallest 10 states get 1 senator.

The problem for Democrats is the Reoublicans have more smaller than average states, the very small states are a mixed bag for both parties at the moment.
Logged
FloridaMan1845
Rookie
**
Posts: 166
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: March 20, 2023, 10:26:46 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. The Senate is meant to represent the States, not the people. Cmon, guys, act like y’all have taken at least one civics/history/government class.
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,131
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: April 18, 2023, 04:46:46 PM »

The ninth and tenth biggest states (by population) now will not necessarily be the ninth and tenth thirty years from now, nor a hundred years from now. What do you suggest to deal with changes to the list of the ten biggest states?
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,618
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: April 18, 2023, 09:22:31 PM »

The simpler idea, if you think the Senate is undemocratic, would be to transfer powers from the Senate to the House of Representatives, and leave the Senate as a symbolic body like the House of Lords. Or just partition very large states. (Actually, per the Constitution, the one thing you are never allowed to amend by the amendment process is equal representation of the states in the Senate, but states have broken off of other states multiple times in US history, including in the Founders' days, so that's clearly good and allowed practice.)
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« 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 0.037 seconds with 12 queries.