The Path to Give California 12 Senators, and Vermont Just One

In my opinion, thinking of each state as a small nation unto itself is the best way to see the value of the senate in its current form.

I find this thought pattern to be helpful because the state has all the government powers not given to the federal government, and not found to be contrary to the constitution. The tenth amendment guarantees this - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Each state, as a small nation, has its own interests that need preserving outside those of the United States at large, and it makes sense that the senate acts as a check on the interests of large, populous states over smaller ones when it comes to these.

Having lived in several states, I've found that differences in values and culture inform general opinion of the federal government. In my opinion, this article sounds like it was written by someone who views the United States federal government as one that should have a large role in the every day lives of citizens, and my feedback to them is that they should consider whether or not they would like it if a growing state with different values than their own suddenly had disproportionate representation federally.

It's interesting to see that this article doesn't mention the House of Representatives at all.

The entire purpose of the Senate is to balance the power of the House, to mitigate states with large populations overpowering states with smaller populations.

It has always been this imbalanced. That is the point... the Senate balances out the House (which is apportioned by population already) to ensure that large population areas can't force policy and laws that are onerous on small (population) states. In other words, this is not a bug, it's a feature.

This argument seems very convoluted. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like Sovereign Citizen level of nuttiness.

The whole crux of the argument seems to boil down to the idea that using a statute to change apportionment in the senate avoids the Article V clause that prevents a constitutional amendment from changing senate apportionment without the consent of every state.

A statute would avoid Article V, it won't avoid Article 1 Section 3, which states that each state gets 2 senators. His "Senate Reform Act" would be unconstitutional without ever involving Article V. All his other arguments seem totally irrelevant; trying to interpret a mess of other amendments as somehow consenting to a loss of equal suffrage is ridiculous. Even if you tried to interpret the 14th amendment as changing the apportionment of senators (a novel interpretation to say the least), it would be clearly unconstitutional as per Article V which specifically forbids any amendment from changing equal suffrage in the senate without the consent of that state.

So either you try to change senate apportionment with a statute and violate Article 1 Section 3, or you try to change it with an amendment and run afoul of Article V.

The only argument in this entire article that makes sense is their idea of amending Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 2. That can be changed, maybe that's where they should focus their efforts.

But if you really hate the senate that much, your best option is to amend away all their powers and turn them into a purely ceremonial body.

The problem is, this bill would have to pass the Senate - the current Senate. That seems... improbable. Even with a Democratic win in 2020, it seems improbable without invoking the nuclear option. I'm not that deep into politics, so I'm not sure whether the nuclear option can be used on a bill like the proposed one. I'm also not clear whether small-state senators would vote for such a bill, even if they are Democrats.

While splitting up large states is one way, what's to stop already small states from splitting up out of spite?

What happens when North Wyoming, South Wyoming, West Wyoming, East Wyoming, Northwest Wyoming, Northeast Wyoming are created?

Wouldn't the better solution just be to get rid of the senate. The senate is there to represent the states and if they are not being represented then why keep it?

Serious question: How do you enforce the will of the majority at the same time as protecting the interests of the minority? It seems to me that this only really allows the minority to set the agenda in most scenarios and the majority can only enforce their will in a "complete control" situation.

EDIT:

Why do states need representations in Congress at all? Aren't states arbitrary divisions anyway, as it relates to policy? Given that, why should we protect smaller states? I would like to know a/the rational basis for that, given that much policy is still left up to the state government so that they may govern their populace effectively as needed in their specific geographical region. Would it be better to protect them in the way of ensuring their ability to make their own laws as-needed isn't overridden by a proportionally-represented Congress? The requirement of equal representation of states (arbitrary) is causing unequal representation of people (what states are made of), which is what government is truly here for.

Equal representation in Senate = whoever has the highest (or at least "most correct as it relates to our map") geographical distribution has the ability to control legislative outcomes. But geographical distribution does not mean majority, and that's where we're at today. This then causes unequal representation of the people in presidential elections via the electoral college and thus further entrenches the unequal representation of the people.

I'd have to say that I disagree with the author's solution and that I really only see one choice, which is to merge (i.e. get rid of) the Senate with the House. The author's solution is merely the same thing by a different name. We should also abolish the electoral college, as this has the same effect as a Senate-type body on a democracy.

Sure, popular election of senators is at least a little problematic. But maybe what we really want is a return to the original model, where members of the House are elected by the people, while senators are chosen by state legislatures.

The current system is a check that prevents individual states from dominating legislation in Congress. Why would anyone want that except for the very populous states?

The top 6 states (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois & Pennsylvania effectively tied) have almost half the population and thus could dominate Congress without input from the other 44 states.

The author comes from Pennsylvania, and so this article should be seen as nothing but self-serving.

But a poll of equal number of citizens from each state would never approve such a measure.

This provision was put into place to preserve the power of the landowning class against what were then referred to as “the mob”, meaning everyone else. It did its job quite well, but it is intentionally anti-democratic and does need to be fixed.