Proposed Senatorial Reform

[Schiff for Senate]

I have a solution that would (somewhat) reform the current Senate allocation. Currently WY and CA have the same number of senators despite CA being 70 times as population. There is a solution that would keep the number of senators at 100, while making the system a tad more just, though the GOP would probably stop it, since it would hurt them. The idea is this: states get 1 to 3 senators, based on their population. The 17 most populous states could have 3 senators, the middle 16 states could have 2 senators, and the least populated 17 states would have 1 senator. Population rankings could be updated per census. It would make the senate system fairer while still giving small states some power (which is what the founders wanted). In fact, it's the best, since I'm quite sure the founders couldn't have forseen the massive population disproportionality we have today. The GOP would object greatly to these measures. What's your opinion? Do you have better alternatives?

The trouble with making the range greater than 1-3 is that the average becomes more than two. The average of 1, 2 and 3 is 2, so you can split the states up pretty evenly, but if the range was, say, 1-4, or 1-5, there would have to be more states with less votes than their would be with more votes (to balance out the fact that the average of 1, 2, 3 and 4 is 2.5, and their needs to be an average of 100/50 = 2 senators from each state), thus dooming it from passage. Of course, the GOP would make sure this didn't work (since it would kill their chances at winning presidential races or the Senate), but giving more states one senator won't be much appreciated their, either. For example, Delaware's two Democratic senators would also dislike this plan, since it would put one of them out a job (and reduce DE's congressional representation by 1/3). Giving even more states 1 senator would just ailienate them.

[Schiff for Senate]

I think the Senate as a concept just needs to be thrown out.  I think equality between the states could be achieved in just the House if a "double majority" threshold was used to pass legislation.  For example, in order for a bill to become law it would need to achieve both a majority of raw votes and those votes would need to come from a majority of the states.

That would just make it even harder for bills to pass. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying...
 Are you saying that a bill would need a majority of total votes and a majority of votes from the majority of states? Because that would just make it much harder to get things done, and it would benefit the GOP immensely in most cases.
 Or will a bill just need to get votes from representatives in at least 26 states? If that's what you means, it sounds reasonable but I'm unsure what effect it would actually have.

[Schiff for Senate]

What about the states that will change the number of Senate seats it has after a new census has come out? For example, suppose a state was the 33rd largest state as of the 2010 census but it will be the 34th state as of the 2020 census, and suppose it elects Senators in the elections of 2018 and 2020, but it will have only one Senator as of 2022?

Also, do not forget about the fact that to make this change to the Senate, you have to adopt a constitutional amendment that has to be ratified by all 50 states.

I thought it only needed ratification from at least 3/4 (38) states, not necessarily all 50. If it does need all 50 states, this reform definitely won't pass (not that it's likely to anyway), since smaller states won't be to keen on losing a senator, in many cases 1/4 or even 1/3 of their congressional representation.

[Schiff for Senate]

What about the states that will change the number of Senate seats it has after a new census has come out? For example, suppose a state was the 33rd largest state as of the 2010 census but it will be the 34th state as of the 2020 census, and suppose it elects Senators in the elections of 2018 and 2020, but it will have only one Senator as of 2022?

Also, do not forget about the fact that to make this change to the Senate, you have to adopt a constitutional amendment that has to be ratified by all 50 states.

I thought it only needed ratification from at least 3/4 (38) states, not necessarily all 50. If it does need all 50 states, this reform definitely won't pass (not that it's likely to anyway), since smaller states won't be to keen on losing a senator, in many cases 1/4 or even 1/3 of their congressional representation.

Article V shields equal representation of the states in the Senate from being amended without the unanimous ratification of any amendment altering the equality among the states therein, although the size of the Senate could still be changed by the regular amendment process so long as each state would continue to have equal representation therein post-ratification.

Well, then everything else (like GOP obstructionism) is a moot point. Very unlikely states like WY and VT would agree to losing a third of their federal representation.