dcraelin
VIP Member
- Sep 4, 2013
- 2,553
- 136
- 85
- Thread starter
- #121
I can accept representation based on population...as in the houseThe make up of the senate actually gives smaller states more representation than they would receive based on population. That's the role of the senate as the smaller, more rural sates wanted some protection from having urban areas call all the shots.
I think it works out fine.
well thats the rhetoric of justification anyway.....actually small non-rural states like New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut get power that isnt justified, based mostly on religious differences of 200 years ago. While the large state of Texas, quite rural in most of it, gets robbed as does California.
Small as in physical size? (what difference does that make ????) Some states have more senators than representatives. THOSE are the rural states that get over representation in the Senate. But the Senate is not - and was never designed to be directly proportional - we have the House to suit that need.
I can accept representation according to some rational measure of economic potential.....renewable resource base for example.
But our Senate makes no rational sense by any measure. RI =California=Wyoming=Alaska no, that is wrong by any measure