“Our top news today, Delaware and Wyoming have been relegated to 2nd tier statehood status, with Maryland and Colorado taking their positions in the Senate.”
Say a welcome to Dakota, Nebransas, Wytana, Utadaho, Arkanahoma, and Missabama.
As well as Cali, Fornia, New New York, Old New York, Ill, Nois, Flo, and Rida.
Oh yeah, as well as DC, Guam, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa.
If all 50 states had the same population.
I’d be ok with something like this for purposes of Senate representation (2014 map). But we have at least one poster on this board who told me a little while ago during an EC debate that they considered themselves a citizen of their state (I believe it was Nevada) much more than a citizen of the US.
Now I’m from Maryland, a humble state with little unique identity (unofficial state motto: "Maryland! No governors indicted since 1970!), so this is an alien concept to me but it appears to matter to at least some of us (looking at you, Texans).
Only if you don’t read the Constitution: “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
Yep, that’s the line that’s actually got to go. Our representatives should represent the people of America, not its states.
Of course, our government seems much more concerned with corporate persons than real persons, so not holding my breath.
Once you’re amending the constitution as smapti said, you can add or subtract whatever sentences you want.
Not in one amendment you can’t. Because the line about not depriving states of Senate Suffrage is in section V, which is the section that specifies how you can amend the Constitution. The Constitution says “You can amend the Constitution by doing blah blah blah, except no Amendment can change Senate Suffrage”.
As stated earlier in the thread, the only way to change the apportionment of votes in the Senate by amending the Constitution is with two amendments. Pass one Amendment removing the line about Amendments not being able to do so, and another that does the thing you want.
It’s possible (likely, maybe) that a two-amendment process is just as politically feasible as a one-amendment process. Likely equally impossible, so I get that I’m splitting hairs here. But that’s the process.
Agreed overall with your point. Whether it’s one amendment or two taken serially or as a pair it can still get done.
Big Picture, any discussion of amending our constitution in any way is silly and has been form probably 50 years. It’s broke and we’re stuck with it.
And initially, Senators were voted for by the state legislature. It was only later than they got elected by a popular vote. And Republicans are trying to turn it back to the state legislatures.
Our representatives do represent the people of America (at least in theory). It’s the senators who represent the states.
Some in this thread (including you, IIUC) think this should be changed, and that senators should represent people rather than states. I’m not sure how I feel about that. But I’m curious how you would answer the question:
Why do we have states? What purpose do they serve? Would we be better off if the country weren’t divided into 50 (or however many) states?
Can I answer?
It’s just useful to break governance into smaller chunks to make things more manageable. That’s why other countries have states and provinces, and why states have counties. The US isn’t really a federation of loosely aligned states anymore – it’s one country, much more like Canada than the EU or even the UK.
Because of history. The United States originated as a relatively loose confederation of states. Very quickly they realized this wouldn’t work, and the federal government gained more power. Originally the purpose of the Senate was to combine with the 3/5ths Compromise to ensure that slavery could not be legislated away.
The Civil War painted a clear picture of why a strong federal government was needed, and WWI and II cemented the United States as a world power and the Federal Government as a centralized and powerful force.
The States are fine as administrative subdivisions of the country as a whole. I have no problem with state laws, etc. But there is absolutely no benefit to granting States themselves representation in the federal government, rather than the people (ETA: Unless you are one of the select few who uses this to game the system and impose a tyranny if the minority)
We have an archaic form of government designed for a loose confederacy of agrarian states. We have modified that framework (with duct tape and chewing gum) so that it runs the most powerful and wealthiest nation on Earth.
Comparing Rome and the US is done far too often, but in this case I think there is an apt comparison to be made. Rome’s government developed in order to run a city-state. As Rome’s wealth, territory, and population grew, this government struggled to adapt, leading to terrible fractures within Roman society; eventually unscrupulous politicians used these fractures to game the system, and the Republic fell.
This is the situation we are in. We can plug our ears and stick with our 18th century form of government, or we can adapt. If we do not adapt, our failure to do so will lead to the failure of our democratic system.