Once again, let us please discontinue all discussion of the U.S. Senate; that’s not what the thread is about, we have other threads for that. States have two-house legislatures in which the question of one house being less-democratically-elected in the other does not arise – at least, not since Reynolds v. Sims. (1964). The question is why they, then, need two houses at all.
Funnily enough, in the UK there’s an occasional parallel debate in which people point to the 435 Representatives in the US House as sufficient for a massive country as America and tiny Britain has 650 (600 from 2015). This of course ignores the fact that the US is a federal state, and Britain is not. We have devolved parliaments, but England dominates the British Union so much that they are pretty minor factors.
Of course, the more members an assembly has, the less efficient it is likely to be.
If this is about equal representation, we will need to get rid of both houses. Wyomingites already out-represent Californians in the House ans Senate.
I don’t know the reason, but I’ve long proposed on these forums going to a dynamic system in which the number is not permanently fixed. You take the smallest district (which is Wyoming) and every other State gets a number of representatives equal to how many times their total population can be divided by the population of Wyoming.
My inclination is to only give reps for whole numbers, so there’d be no rounding. If your State’s population is 1.9 times the size of Wyoming’s, you would still only get 1 rep, but if it was 2.1 you’d get 2. This would make the House larger, but it would only have around 600 some members. I think California ends up with around 61 reps under this system, which I think is a better way to do it.
We’ve already answered it and you’ve said nothing to contest that answer: that it requires more deliberation and compromise, it insulates the legislature better from flights of passion and the rise of transient factions that might act against the interests of the state.
Your role here really needs to be that of someone who is willing to debate the point, instead of not debating it and continually pointing out what the thread isn’t about.
A valid observation, and it’s one issue in the tension between a numerous chamber and a small one; the flipside being a numerically small chamber will be more distant from the electorate as they will have much larger constituencies and be unable to listen to all of them.
I have already addressed that: A one-house legislature is better because it can correct its mistakes more easily than a two-house legislature.
That’s one way of looking at it, although the other is that it may be too late to avoid the damage done by those mistakes which a bicameral legislature may stand a better chance at avoiding in the first place…
On the flip side, a one-house legislature is worse because it can make mistakes more easily than a two-house legislature. Which, considering how many perfectly well-intended laws with awful, unplanned side effects there have been with two…yeah.
And that’s even if we ignore the partisan bullshit a one-house legislature with a party majority (or worse, super majority) can get up to if it sets its mind to it. Which would be all the time in the US, since y’all only have two parties (and one of them tries to please people who like Fox News). I could kinda see a one-house system hobbling along in a political landscape as jigsaw-ey as, say, Israel ; but in Red Versus Blue Winner Takes All Cage Deathmatch ? That’d be just silly. Entertaining of course, at least as observed from abroad. But silly.
Look, when the WH and even one house of Congress are controlled by different parties – which is most of the time – the result is always some degree of gridlock. Which sensible Americans recognize as a thing to be avoided. Anything that makes it less likely is worth doing. (I’d propose changing to a parliamentary system, where that situation never arises, but that would be a different thread.)
I don’t know. I suppose it depends on the issue, but I would say that as a general rule, nothing getting done is actually better than something stupid getting done.
Obviously, something clever getting done would be best, but now we’re verging on sci fi. I mean, we ARE talking about politicians 
That’s rounding. It’s just rounding that results in more inequality. Having no rounding would require fractional representatives.
Correct. I should have said there would be no rounding up, you only get the number of representatives that you can physically have (and since there is no possibility of having a fractional person, that means only the whole number of times your state can have its population divided by the population of Wyoming.)
Well you can still have deadlock in a parliamentary system, but between the two Houses only rather than the executive and the legislature (as one inevitably has to give). Which is why I prefer asymmetrical bicameralism to prevent even that too.
Case law says you are wrong.
Reynolds v. Sims mandated redrawing legislative districts after every census to ensure, “equality under the law.” That’s the phrase to remember. They didn’t change the Federal Senate because it was grandfathered in by the Constitution, but they didn’t decide by analogy that unequal districts must be OK otherwise.
(This is really an argument for the other thread.)
I’m not represented by two senators and one representative. I’m represented by approximately 0.000002 senators and 0.000001 representative. If I tell one of those fellows I’d like some policy enacted, they’ll take it into consideration, but weigh it against what nearly a million other constituents want from them, so my power to democratically influence my government is diluted by that factor. That’d be fine, if everyone had the same amount of dilution, but we don’t. Any individual Californian has much less power to influence the government than I do.