You don't need to change the Senate. Two per state is fine. It is the House of Representatives that needs a closer look. Gerrymandering, too many citizens/representative, etc.Turquoise wrote:
True, 3 Senators per state would probably balance things out as well.Cybargs wrote:
Think about how big the US population is. 50k per rep... in a country of 300 million... The senate needs a drastic change.Turquoise wrote:
Actually, Mitch makes a really good point.
Most countries with a bicameral legislature have dramatically increased the size of their legislature to account for increases in population.
We haven't... this does actually lead to more disenfranchisement in America with regard to accurate representation.
The Constitutional maximum is stated as being 1 Representative per 30,000 people. The current ratio varies widely by state. Some states are grossly overrepresented, while others are grossly underrepresented.
A less dramatic proposal is the Wyoming Rule, where all states would have 1 Representative per the amount of people that live in Wyoming -- the least populous state. Because it's hard to mathematically apply this in such a way that the ratio would actually remain consistent, it might take giving Wyoming 2 to 3 Representatives and using whatever that ratio works out to.
However, as far as the House goes, the current ratio averages out to about 1 Representative per 650,000 people. The problem with that is that some states have a much higher ratio. Montana has 1 Representative for all 967,000 of its people.
So, in effect, Wyoming is actually overrepresented (they have only about 544,000 people), while Montana is underrepresented.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
