The problem with two Senators for every state — Alex, where is this revolt of which ye speak?
I wanted to expound a bit on the “Senate problem” I wrote about earlier and also ask a question about the House of Representatives.
From Federalist Paper #22
“It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America, and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third. The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller. A sixtieth part of the Union, which is about the proportion of Delaware and Rhode Island, has several times been able to oppose an entire bar to its operations. This is one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.”
Also, why was the number of representatives in the House set at 435, per the 1910 census, and kept that way ever since despite the U.S. population tripling since then? After all, defenders of equal representation in the Senate regardless of population are always telling us that “the people” are represented in the House. Why does this remind me of one of the primary reason for our revolution ( taxation without representation)?
Coolmusings 