Number 3 structures the Senate (more or less) the same as the House. The whole point of the Senate is to give each state equal representation, while the House gives each person equal representation.
If you’re going to restructure the Senate that way, may just as well get rid of it.
I don’t see any logic behind giving every state equal representation when each state is not equal in population, commerce, or even territory.
I think the need for both a senate and a house is important, and the distinction between the two would be that individual districts select the house appointments while the state as a whole decides the senators.
I think the additional chamber of the senate helps quality control over changes by the house, and makes it harder for harmful changes like those by the GOP to pass while incentivizing changes popular by the larger majority.
The senate was conceived at a time when the most populated states were filled with slaves and disenfranchised poors who couldn’t vote. There’s no reason to discard a longer-termed gerrymanderjng-immune chamber of Congress just because we want the 70 million Americans in California and Texas to not be subjects of the 1 million in Vermont and Wyoming.
Stacking the senate to reflect population is fine. Especially if we change the house to only care about voters
The senate is by no means fair or democratic, but its borders reflect something that exists apart from the purpose of electing senators and whose borders are not drawn for the (sole) purpose of obtaining a majority in the Senate.
It’s not gerrymandered in the way that a “whites-only” sign isnt sexist.
The reason they’re gerrymander immune is that they only have two reps that aren’t up for election at the same time. If you award seats proportionally Californa will have roughly a dozen seats in the Senate. What would be the schedule and process for electing them all? Why not just use that process for a single legislature?
Having all of Congress be at-large would essentially eliminate gerrymandering by just letting any majority in a state decide everything.
I think thats the single worst change we could make, beating out term limits. ~Because if only lobbyists and staffers can be long-term careers we’d never have principled professional politicians, just short-term figureheads~
“At Large” means that the senators would be elected by the whole state, which is the only way to avoid gerrymandering and identical to how the current rules work.
It’s not the only way. Larger multi-member districts also work.
And while we’re re-writing the whole constitution, we could do lots of things. Like requiring algorithmically generated districts, to remove the possibility of any arbitrary bias.
Number 3 structures the Senate (more or less) the same as the House. The whole point of the Senate is to give each state equal representation, while the House gives each person equal representation.
If you’re going to restructure the Senate that way, may just as well get rid of it.
I don’t see any logic behind giving every state equal representation when each state is not equal in population, commerce, or even territory.
I think the need for both a senate and a house is important, and the distinction between the two would be that individual districts select the house appointments while the state as a whole decides the senators.
I think the additional chamber of the senate helps quality control over changes by the house, and makes it harder for harmful changes like those by the GOP to pass while incentivizing changes popular by the larger majority.
The senate was conceived at a time when the most populated states were filled with slaves and disenfranchised poors who couldn’t vote. There’s no reason to discard a longer-termed gerrymanderjng-immune chamber of Congress just because we want the 70 million Americans in California and Texas to not be subjects of the 1 million in Vermont and Wyoming.
Stacking the senate to reflect population is fine. Especially if we change the house to only care about voters
Senate, not gerrymandered?
giving < 1/3rd of the population 2/3rds of the national political power is the most severe representative disenfranchisement there is in the US
The senate is by no means fair or democratic, but its borders reflect something that exists apart from the purpose of electing senators and whose borders are not drawn for the (sole) purpose of obtaining a majority in the Senate.
It’s not gerrymandered in the way that a “whites-only” sign isnt sexist.
The reason they’re gerrymander immune is that they only have two reps that aren’t up for election at the same time. If you award seats proportionally Californa will have roughly a dozen seats in the Senate. What would be the schedule and process for electing them all? Why not just use that process for a single legislature?
CA can have four at-large seats for the whole state up for election every two years.
They would have the same long-view that existing senators have, and would not be internally less responsive than the current system
That sounds great.
Just use that in the House.
Having all of Congress be at-large would essentially eliminate gerrymandering by just letting any majority in a state decide everything.
I think thats the single worst change we could make, beating out term limits. ~Because if only lobbyists and staffers can be long-term careers we’d never have principled professional politicians, just short-term figureheads~
What does “be at-large” mean?
We’re talking about a kind of stagered multi-member districts.
“At Large” means that the senators would be elected by the whole state, which is the only way to avoid gerrymandering and identical to how the current rules work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-large
It’s not the only way. Larger multi-member districts also work.
And while we’re re-writing the whole constitution, we could do lots of things. Like requiring algorithmically generated districts, to remove the possibility of any arbitrary bias.