Hmmmm

That's why we only get one House Representative in our state (2 ID, MT, 4 IA) and they can get 55 in the whole state of California!

But how many people in the house of representatives per state, I rest my case

But without a more balanced representation in the Senate, the approximately 3 million people of Montana and the Dakotas have 3 times the power of the 40 million Californians.

Uh, no. Every state is guaranteed 2 senators but the house of representatives is based off of population, hence why California has 53, and Wyoming has 1

Only in the Senate. In the House of Representatives California has 52 votes. Montana and the Dakotas have what, 4? 5?

So don't go thinking the disparity is one-sided.

The disparity is terribly one-sided. Each of those states has about a million inhabitants. Proportionally, their votes count for a lot more than those of a million Californians or New Yorkers. The wild disparity of Senate representation can't really have been envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

The Census data from the time of the Constitution show that the population of the largest state (Virginia, swollen with a greater enslaved population than all of its "free white males") was only about 10 times that of the smallest states. Now the disparity in population -- and therefore representation -- is much more tilted, and it perversely favors a set of demographically more similar states than it disadvantages . . . older, whiter, more rural.

You again miss the point; the Senate isn't about population. The Founders specifically designed it because they wanted to ensure there was a chamber of Congress in which all states, no matter their economic or demographical power, were treated equally.

Again, I refer you to the House of Representatives. That chamber of Congress was designed to reflect relative state power by population, and in that chamber there is a massive advantage lent to states like California and New York.

I'm aware. However, my point: because of the changes in the country since the time of the Founding Fathers, the bicameral legislature doesn't work the same way now that it did then.

Why not? Instead of 13 states, there are 50. All are represented equally as states in the U.S Senate. All of our seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned purely by population; population centers control the House.

The Democrats currently control all three branches of Congress, and had a real majority in the Senate as recently as 2008. They are not being disenfranchised in any way by population breakdowns among those states.

Three branches of Congress?

LOL, thanks for that. I meant the three branches of government.

Unless the Congressional secretary has launched a coup of their own and taken up the reins of power...lol

Since you included my state of Montana, I feel obligated to inform you that every state is represented equally in the senate (so population is irrelevant). California has more Reps than many red states combined, so imagine how we feel in that regard.

Amen.

I understand, but I'm more concerned with people than with states in the issue of representation.

Then you should concern yourself with the House of Representatives and leave the Senate to do its job.

Except they don't.

How so? They operate under normal Senate rules and are in no way inhibited in discharging their elected duties. Every state has two Senators present who all have a good record of attending votes and other functions.

The Senate is not a rubber-stamp brigade for whomever occupies the White House. It is an entity of the U.S government that exists as a Chamber of Congress dedicated to representing the interests of all states equally. If a larger number of states value conservative ideals, or a larger number in turn value liberal ideals, then the Senate by its nature must reflect that because the U.S was built to balance a citizen's national and state identities as a check on power centralization.

Hyperbole.

Noun: Exaggerated statements not meant to be taken literally

Funny...see, what I did was describe to you the real function of the United States Senate, not indulge in hyperbole. Like it or hate it, that's how it is.

No, i was speaking in hyperbole

Ohh, my bad, my bad.

I'd argue that the blue dot doesn't even has two Senators. The Greater LA area has a little less than 1/2 the population of California . . . so they probably have about 95% of Padilla.

Every state is represented equally, which is the entire purpose of the Senate. It was designed this way in a wholly democratic (read: unanimous) vote in 1785 [I think].

So the Senate is actually 100% democratic in origin and in terms of how it represents its members.

So a state with 1 million people should have the same representation as a state with 15 million people?

I don't think you understand how the United States works, bud. States with a larger population DO have more representation...in the House of Representatives, which was designed to balance state governmental power via population.

The Senate is a chamber of Congress in which all states have equal voting power because they are all equal in their statehood as members of the UNITED STATES (caps are for emphasis, not yelling at you...this website does not have italics).

The result is a system of government that ensures states are represented and awarded power both by population (in the House of Representstives) and by equality as states alone (in the Senate). Complaining that the Senate isn't divided by population is like complaining your iPhone charger won't put gasoline in your car; it simply was not designed to do that.

The problem is the Senate has too much power. That is because they control a lot of things without listening to the voters. If 20 million people in a state say X shouldn't be confirmed for an important role why should two states with 1 million people each be able to confirm X for the important role?

Because the United States was designed with the basic understanding that *how many* people is important, but it's also important to prevent population centers from controlling everything. The idea is to prevent tyranny of the majority as well as the minority.

Just think about it; if you, like me, lived in Montana and we had either one chamber of Congress or two as now, but both split by population, then we in Montana effectively have no say in the decisions of the nation. My state and its few residents would be wholly inferior, second-class citizens essentially, to the likes of Texas, California, New York, Florida, etc.

Yet those states rely on Montana for a LOT of things. We are a massive exporter of meat and grain products to the country and world. We ship trainloads of coal to the West Coast daily (they often make me late for work) and ship cattle and Boeing aircraft components across the nation. We generate billions in tourism revenue because of our massive wilderness areas (great for hunting, fishing, and generally recreating). Our mines literally built the world (read about Butte Mine). Yet our largest city doesn't even have a million people in it.

None of these industries lend themselves to large populations, yet Montana as a state is a thriving and vital part of the United States. Why shouldn't we be given equal representation in part of the government? What makes New York as a state more important than Montana?

That is why we have one chamber for population and one for states. The Senate is supposed to be the throttle that ensures population centers don't pass policy that needlessly disenfranchises smaller states. The House though entirely allows for that because population needs to be taken into account as well. Were the system entirely based on state equality, that would be equally unfair to large states like Texas and California.

Does that help? I feel it was pretty good...

I agree the Senate is important. The problem is the Senate had too much power.

That's...just repeating yourself bro. Not exactly a good defense of your argument here.

The Senate is performing its job exactly as intended. I'd bet a lot of money that if our positions were reversed and a single Republican 'nay' vote was preventing the Republican party from passing a massive bill that outlawed all renewable energy you'd be here telling me that the Senate is performing exactly as it was intended.

Though I am curious; what change would you propose be made to the Senate in order to rectify your perceived grievance with it?