The Senate is intentionally designed to give more power to smaller states. Otherwise, the 10-15 biggest states could routinely gang up and pass federal legislation. Not a really nice outlook for a federal government.

The Senate was designed that way when the distribution of "Free white males 16 years and upward" - the only people who could vote at that time - was far more uniform across the states [1].

There was only 1 order of magnitude difference between the voting eligible population of the smallest state (Delaware) and the largest state (Virginia).

Today, that difference is 2 orders of magnitude, which is massive in comparison to what it was when the Senate seat allocation was designed.

Arguments for the preservation of that system are nothing more than shallowly disguised arguments for the continued selective erosion of voting power of individuals in high population states.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_census

The US system isnt perfect, but arguments against the current allocation of Senators is effectively arguing that the Senate should be abolished (which would take a constitutional amendment). I think small states suddenly finding themselves largely powerless would consider secession if that were the case.

> I think small states suddenly finding themselves largely powerless would consider secession if that were the case.

I have little doubt they would, and in doing so start a war. After all, it's happened before, and many people are plainly agitating for it now.

It's the "my enhanced privilege or your destruction, choose one" argument, which is a clear demonstration of one way the system codifies structural inequality and is transparently anti democratic. In a similar way, corporate lobbying distorts democratic representation, and by all appearances, they overlap quite a bit, differentiated only by the industry sector and which Senator they support.

> The Senate was designed that way when the distribution [...] was far more uniform across the states

Doesn't this goes against your argument then?

At a time where most of the voting population was at its peak uniformity, the 2-senator-per-state model was invented to ensure that the bigger states could not bully their way in federal legislation.

It was invented at the time where it was the least needed, since as you said, voting population was very uniform, so they mostly want the same things.

> Doesn't this goes against your argument then?

No. It was also anti-democratic at that time, but because the distribution of the vote was an order of magnitude less divergent, and the only people who could vote were landowning white men, it was able to succeed politically as a compromise.

Since then, its anti-democratic effects have magnified as the population divergence between states has magnified.

But what are states, artificial boundaries within a country for administration purposes.

Why should 5 million people in a particular boundary have the same say as 50 million people living in another boundary. It makes no logical sense..

In fact it is anti-democracy as all citizens’ votes are not equal. In fact this applies to the electoral vote system also.

Indeed. This is a problem that happens anyway. Getting rid of the Senate would make it worse. Just look what percentage of the western states is federal land, and what percentage of the Colorado river is claimed by California, both at the expense of people who actually live in those states.

so instead the small states get to gang up and impose their will on the rest with only a fraction of the population?

There are a billion ways you can split a democratic body in to a majority and minority. We don't give the left handed, orphans, or people whose name starts with F extra voting power because the righties, parent havers, and all the other name start letters could gang up on them. So if being a minority isn't an obvious reason on its own to be given more voting power, then there needs to be more reason to do so for the states, and every time I see this brought up the only defence is that the small states would have a minority of votes.

> The system has its origins at a time when only land owning white men (by definition a minority at the time)

And even then, it was highly debated against, if I remember correctly even James Madison himself was against it, to say nothing of the anti-federalists.

In the end Madison saw it as a compromise towards the States, but after 200+ years I think the anti-federalists were right on this, it ended up like an aristocracy-like thing with too much power vested in its members.

The bicameral congress lets small states join and maintain membership in a union safely. It is a net increase in the people's representation and this has only become moreso in the era of popularly elected senators. India, with its historically fraught relations between ethnicities, religions, languages and social ranks, would benefit greatly from such representation.

> It is a net increase in the people's representation and this has only become moreso in the era of popularly elected senators.

It's a net zero increase in the people's representation. It is a redistribution of representation toward smaller states, which has accelerated as state populations have diverged.

A multi-cameral legislature is a net increase in representation because it forces national considerations to be examined multiple ways. The increased attention and varied perspective represents the beliefs and desires of more people than just a majority as measured one way (e.g., by political party.)

By contrast, a single-house legislature fulfills the desires of a national majority population the most quickly, which is what you are advocating for. This is at the expense of more careful consideration.

In other words, we do not agree on the definition of representation as you see it as maximizing activity and I see it as maximizing consideration.

> In other words, we do not agree on the definition of representation as you see it as maximizing activity and I see it as maximizing consideration

The only thing it maximizes today is the continuation of hereditary and tribal concentrations of political power. It's a hostage situation, as the secessionists honestly will tell you.

While I appreciate your zeal, I suspect we will not proceed to real discussion. Setting aside that countries with histories different than that of the United States use bicameral legislature, consider how multi-cameral legislature might benefit a country even when one, relatively uniform, political party controls all houses.

Like the internet, government used to be more decentralized. States were the dominant law givers, and it meant that power centers were more decentralized and local to the people being governed. Instead of most laws that directly impact your life coming from far away in Washington DC from politicians you will never meet and can't influence, you had laws from more local government that you had more of a chance of participating in and influencing (e.g. for the things that mattered you had much more _meaningful_ representation). When states could elect senators, it had more of a chance of keeping that power decentralized. Now government power, like the internet, is increasingly centralized which makes it a battle of the federal government to make the entire country do what "our side" wants. It would be better if most laws were decided locally in your state or city-- and other states or cities could do things differently. That would be good for everybody.

No it balances the power between the states. The federal government should not be involved in day to day affairs of the general populace. As it was originally conceived it was a government of enumerated powers.

The house represents the people, the senate the states. In fact, allowing the direct election of senators was one of the worst decisions ever made.

> The federal government should not be involved in day to day affairs of the general populace.

This is an argument that the Senate - a part of the federal government - should have less power than it does today, much as the House of Lords' power has diminished in the UK.

I'd argue the opposite - currently, the Senate is where legislation goes to die after being passed in the house (which arguably represents the will of the people, at least in theory). The government would be more involved in the day to day affairs of people if the Senate was weakened or eliminated.

That's an interesting view of electing senators. Is there somewhere I can read more about it? Never thought of it as a very important change.

Yeah, it's called "the great compromise". During the days when the founders were debating majority rule vs minority rights, they couldn't decide what to do. So they created two houses that both have to coordinate to pass law, but provided a few escape hatches.

Random, but this is also why adding Puerto Rico as a state is extremely threatening to the political paradigm today. It would add 2 extra senators, who would most likely be democratic.

Here's a link: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing...