Shouldn't California's Senators Votes be counted for more than just two?

[kentuck]

After all, since each state gets 2 Senators - no matter how large or how small - the two Senators from California represent as many people as the Senators in the ten least populated states. And those states get 20 votes but California only gets two. So, in truth, we have the majority - even though we have less Senators in the Senate - we still represent the most people in the country. :)

[BattyDem]

1. As far as I'm concerned ...

CA can have as many Senators as they want ... just as long as they're all named "Boxer" :patriot:

[Jack Rabbit]

2. Except that was the idea

Some at the Constitutional convention in Philadelphia (1787) wanted a Congress that would represent the people; others wanted one would represent the states with an equal number of votes.

The compromised and had two houses of Congress.

[aquart]

3. No dear, proportional representation is in the House, not the Senate.

Try to keep up.

[kentuck]

6. Oh, I know that...

:) Just putting a little something out there to think about when the discussion turns to filibuster. They may have more Senators but they don't represent the majority of the people.

[wtmusic]

14. Back in 1787 in an agrarian economy

geography played a far more important role.

Maybe Senate votes should be "unweighted" vs. House votes to reflect today's extremes of population distribution.

[onehandle]

4. And Wyoming Senators should get only 1/25th of a vote.

Damn that pesky Constitution!

[RoyGBiv]

5. I'd be all for that ...

If we didn't have to consider the number of votes Senators from Texas should get for the same reason.

The structure of the Senate is not a bad idea, imo.

[kentuck]

9. And don't forget NY and Illinois...

:)

[RoyGBiv]

12. Yes, of course ...

But like the "nuclear option" the Republicans are considering and the "two-term limit" they blew through the country in the wake of FDR's terms, when the pendulum swings, we'd all be singing a different tune.

The Framers had a genius for institutions. Those institutions matter more than the make-up of those institutions at any given moment.

[last_texas_dem]

10. Great minds think alike

I promise I wasn't just copying you in my post below! :hi:

[RoyGBiv]

13. A toast to synchronicity!!!

:toast:

[mitchtv]

7. one in every 8

is a Californian 36 million. Independence now

[last_texas_dem]

8. Sounds good to me, except

if CA got 20 Senators then TX would have to have at least 12 or so and you know the kind of wing-nuts we'd put in there....

[kentuck]

11. Chicago and NYC would take care of Texas...

:)

[Worst Username Ever]

15. That is what the house is for n/t

[Liberty Belle]

16. Hmmm. There's an idea. CA could split up into 3 states...

North, Central, and Southern. So we'd get 6 Senators, not 2.

On second thought, bad idea. No doubt Texas would follow suit, and we'd get flooded by Bushie clones.

[ISUGRADIA]

17. Seems logical except every other state would have to agree to it

[LimpingLib]

18. I thought us Democrats supported the minoritys?

Isnt that why we all the sudden have become the filibusters greatest defender?

Anyway I agree with your post to an extent but why not just abolish the Senate all together? Instead of giving a bunch of statewide seats, ho about we just have a nation of congressional districts like every other nation in the world?