WP: In the Senate, Small States Wield Outsize Power. Is This What the Founders Had in Mind?

[godai]

Very interesting article which covers why the Senate exists as it does (2 per state), as well as the Gang of Six and the influence they wield on issues such as farm subsidies, banking, sugar tariffs to protect corn and even transportation (small states don't have a lot of transportation problems). It's a problem that's probably never going to change.

-----------------------------------------------------

Why, for example, have even Democratic senators been resistant on health-care reform? It might be because so many of the key players represent so few of the voters who carried Obama to victory -- and so few of the nation's uninsured. The Senate Finance Committee's "Gang of Six" that is drafting health-care legislation that may shape the final deal -- without a public insurance option -- represents six states that are among the least populous in the country: Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Maine, New Mexico and Iowa.

Between them, those six states hold 8.4 million people -- less than New Jersey -- and represent 3 percent of the U.S. population. North Dakota and Wyoming each have fewer than 80,000 uninsured people, in a country where about 47 million lack insurance. In the House, those six states have 13 seats out of 435, 3 percent of the whole. In the Senate, those six members are crafting what may well be the blueprint for reform.

Was this really what the founders had in mind? One popular story tells of Thomas Jefferson asking George Washington what the Senate's purpose is. "Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?" Washington asked in return. "To cool it," Jefferson replied. To which Washington said, "Even so, we pour legislation in the senatorial saucer to cool it." A nice tale. But what if the coffee gets so cold that no one bothers to drink it? Or if the Senate takes its coffee black in a country that opted overwhelmingly for sugar and cream?

The delegates finally settled on the Connecticut Compromise, or the Great Compromise. Seats in the lower chamber would be apportioned by population (with some residents counting more than others, of course) while seats in the upper chamber would be awarded two per state.

Today, California is 70 times as large as the smallest state, Wyoming, whose population of 533,000 is smaller than that of the average congressional district, and, yes, smaller than that of Washington D.C., which has zero votes in Congress to Wyoming's three. The 10 largest states are home to more than half the people in the country, yet have only a fifth of the votes in the Senate. The 21 smallest states together hold fewer people than California's 36.7 million -- which means there are 42 senators who together represent fewer constituents than Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. And under Senate rules, of course, those 42 senators -- representing barely more than a tenth of the country's population -- can mount a filibuster.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080702045.html

[bbinacan]

1. That's why we have the House. n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

2. I think it was done intentionally to balance the power...but you are right

IUn effect...it gives some of the less populated states more power than the highly populated states.

I beleive I heard a discussion about this on NPR this week.

[sasquatch]

3. Unfortunately yes, this is what they had in mind

We just have to be meaner about it.

[dkf]

4. Maybe California should break up into 3 states or more.

They seem to be dysfunctional anyway.

[godai]

5. In 1889, the Dakotas were created (2 states) for analogous reasons.

Nevada was admitted in 1864 to help ratify the Civil War amendments despite being virtually empty; the Dakotas joined in 1889, split in two to provide more votes in the Senate and the Electoral College; Wyoming joined a year later with 63,000 residents.

[opihimoimoi]

6. Its a step to prevent larger States from Dominating smaller ones..but w unintended consequences

[Journeyman]

7. This set up makes it easier for Corporate interests to buy Senators . . .

Why spend hundreds of millions trying to buy a Senator in a State with a huge population when you can get a "Blue Light Special" for a tenth the cost in a little backwater State with very little population to compete against? That way, everyone loses but you, the Corpo in need of a Senator in your pocket -- you get him for a smidgen of what a truly representative "statesman" would cost and his constituents -- along with the rest of the nation -- are left with the illusion they live in a democracy.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. This was always the case. When the decision was made...

Virginia was the largest colony and Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont were terrified of its power. They weren't all that comfortable with Massachussetts or Pennsylvania, either. The Senate was designed so that tiny Rhode Island wouldn't be overwhelmed, and it was a brilliant idea at the time.

What has radically changed is that we are no longer 13 states with 26 Senators, but 50 states with 100, and we may have reached the point of no return where little of substance can actually be done with that much ego in one room.

[stranger81]

9. Exactly what the framers intended.

Without 2 senators for each state, regardless of size, smaller states would not have joined the Union and the Constitutional Convention would have failed.

[Nite Owl]

10. It's not just that small states have

equal representation in the Senate, it's the composition of the committees. The members in charge on the Finance Committee are all from small states. That's where the representation problem breaks down. That is where it is unfair to the more populated states. If those making up the plan were more diverse then more could be done, those small state Senators would be just one vote not the whole thing.Baucus and Conrad have no business being charge and they are deliberately excluding the Senators who represent more people. Needing sixty votes is also not something the founders had in mind.