The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Politics & Current Events / Retire Early Liberal Edition


Subject:  Re: Impact of Right Wing Echo Chamber Date:  12/18/2018  2:20 PM
Author:  albaby1 Number:  122918 of 130219

California has a population of 39.8 million and is 13.3% of the US economy.

Wyoming has a population of 574k and is .3% of the US economy.

And they both have 2 Senators. I understand why this was done in 1776 with only 13 states. Today, it doesn't make much sense.

Out of curiosity, why doesn't it make much sense today, if it made sense in 1776?

The underlying rationale for basing representation in only one chamber on population remains the same: to allow states to have proportional representation as states, to protect against large population states using their majority against smaller states. That interest still exists. States like Vermont and Wyoming and Rhode Island and Delaware hand Montana (individually or collectively) have very few Representatives in the House. So a bill that directed that all federal infrastructure spending should be allocated solely to states with more than 2 million inhabitants (for example) would surely die in the Senate, whereas it would have a fighting chance in the House.

Now, you can make an argument that protecting the interests of States as States is both anti-democratic (it certainly is) and therefore in appropriate or unjust (far more open to debate). But that argument was just as true in 1776 as it is today. So I'm not sure I understand what's changed. Not the degree of variation in population - in 1770, tiny Georgia had only 0.1% of the population (smaller than Wyoming today), compared to Virginia's 19% (larger than California's today), but they both had the same number of Senators then as well.

Copyright 1996-2019 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us