Problem is, the politicians are in gerrymandered districts, so…
It isn’t just the overall population number that you have to look at. There are (at least) two other potential issues–(1) some people feel that cities and maybe counties should not be split between districts, and (2) demographics change. A minority group may become more concentrated in an area over time. Some people feel that that should lead to change in district boundaries.
Is that necessarily a good thing? Isn’t that how the pork barrel is often initially coopered? By Reps caring more about their parochial district’s business interests than their state and country’s interests as a whole.
They are elected to represent their district though. And they may think that the interests of their district don’t conflict with the interests of the country as a whole.
You’ve touched on a fundamental question in our democracy that is bigger than the issue of drawing districts.
While it’s somewhat been addressed, I’ll note that the situation proposed by OP was the situation in the United Kingdom before it adopted regular redistricting and its boundary commissions. Back to “time immemorial”, the monarch would grant certain market towns or others representation in parliament. Once granted these districts were fixed, and never changed. So over time a town may become depopulated just due to the changes in economics, society etc. But that town never lost its representation. Conversely, what was once a small town can grow.
Most notably in the 19th century Old Sarum, a thriving market town some 900 years earlier had effectively become depopulated, one of the infamous “rotten boroughs.” Rotten boroughs typically fell under the control of a powerful landowner, giving said landowner effectively his own personal MP to appoint. Old Sarum was controlled by the Pitt family. Some powerful members of British society–like the Duke of Norfolk in the 19th century, controlled almost a dozen pocket boroughs. Through that mechanism Peers could actually greatly influence the make up of the house of commons, through their collective control of pocket boroughs. The British reformed this with the 1832 Reform Act, and later on in the 20th century they got things more or less “right” by further fixing things by introducing regular borough redrawings overseen by independent boundary commissions.
They do that for the US Senate, and they are called States.
Got 50 of them, by the way.
No, they don’t. Senators don’t serve districts, they serve the entire state that elected them. There’s also little chance of a “rotten state”, all of the states have significantly higher populations today than when either the constitution was written (for the originals) or versus when they joined (for all others.)
The point is that the states vary dramatically in population, so the people of California have much less representation in the Senate, per capita, than those in Alaska.
That’s by design. The House districts aren’t supposed to be apportioned to benefit one political party, thus why gerrymandering is bad. There isn’t anything real similar with Senate seats, they’re intended to represent a State’s interests, not x number of constituents.
Well… there’s not necessarily a conflict. The kind of thing I’m thinking of often doesn’t involve any spending at all, at least none that wasn’t already allocated anyway. It’s more about citizens having an advocate, a liaison between their local district and this or that federal agency. US House Reps can also intercede with state governments; they may have no official capacity to do so, but if they make a call on citizens’ behalf, it tends to get noticed.
Yes.
It’s a terrible design that means a vote for president cast in California counts for less than half compared to one cast in Vermont or Wyoming. And there is no potential remedy due to US Constitution Article V stating that “no amendment” can cause a “State, without its Consent, [to] be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
P.S. to my last post:
The founding fathers made what amounts to Senate gerrymandering permanent.
But there is nothing to stop a non-partisan commission approach that would stop gerrymandering in the House of Representatives. I’m all for that.
Certainly there is a remedy: an amendment to the Constitution repealing that article.
Well, yes, but that’s the Senate. It’s designed to be a big stupid establishment brake on everything. That the whole reason for there to be a Senate in the first place (or a House of Lords or what have you). As such it is only expected that everything about it favours obstructionism on every level.
Since it says in the article that some of the provisions can’t be changed by amendment, this would set up a constitutional crisis.
Why not just pass a law repealing that article? It’s just as unconstitutional as your amendment, and easier to do.
The Lords have much less power than the Senate. And, at least until recently, they were much less partisan.
As to why it is there in the first place, this is rather speculative. My speculation is that the US Constitution is largely shaped by what was needed to get it ratified.
No, it does not. Not since 1808.
The campaign for such a change would certainly be a very difficult one, and presumably the smaller-population states would have to be given some other kind of concession, in exchange for their consent. But difficult as it might be, there is a wholly Constitutional process spelled out.
Yes, but until recently they were much more powerful too. Their influence on the budget was only neutered in 1910 for example.
Yes, but that’s a distinction without a difference.
Look up wherever modern twin-chambered Republics were founded and you’ll find that the creation of a Senate house has *always *been a compromise to get moderate anti-Republic conservatives on-side as a reassuring measure that “them progressives won’t chip at y’alls privileges too quick, honest Injun”, to get said Republic founded in the first place with a minimum of fuss and/or guns.
It was also typical for Senates of all stripes and countries to over-represent the rural portions of the country, because the rurals tended to be a) a lot more conservative b) to vote for the old establishment for various reasons and c) the big source of financial power of the previous establishment, be it in the form of actual feudal aristocracy or just protocapitalist landowners because that’s where the big bucks were back then. Over-reprensenting the agricultural side of the country meant protectionist measures and tariffs and subsidies to be had down the road to protect their interests.
So, yes, you’re absolutely right that the Constitution is what it is because of what was needed to get it ratified - but what was needed was a big break on progress, or at least on reform which typically had its roots in big cities. Same goes for the 3/5th compromise. The only “exceptionalist” argument you can put forward in the US is that is that on top of favouring low-population density areas (that is Hicksville, South Virginia) it also favoured tiny states.
The weird part, to me, is that nobody seems to have taken advantage of this down the road, e.g. by founding the States of Texas I through CCLIV. Fuck it, you know ? The system’s dumb and rigged, might as well game it. Too late now of course.
There are two limitations on the amendment power that expired in 1808:
The first prohibited any amendment that would have overturned Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, which in turn prohibited Congress from passing any law banning the African slave trade–though typically for the antebellum Constitution, the language is very coy; the “Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit”–and that limitation on ordinary Congressional power itself expired in 1808, and Congress in fact passed the the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves as soon as it was Constitutionally permitted to do so.
The second prohibited (before 1808) any amendment that would have overturned Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, which prohibited certain kinds of taxes. Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, was in turn overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment, which permits income taxes (and was passed well after 1808).
The limitation on amendments that deprive any state of equal suffrage in the Senate is not time-limited and is still in effect. Whether or not you could just repeal the appropriate part of Article V, and then pass the Too Damned Many Dakotas Amendment, is tricky. Also, if the Too Damned Many Dakotas Amendment was consented too by all of the states affected, it would be constitutional even under Article V as written (“that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate”).
Finally, if the Senate was simply abolished, it would be an interesting question as to whether that violated the final provision of Article V; if all the states have zero representation in the Senate (because there is no more Senate), then arguably they still have “equal” representation. My guess would be that the Supreme Court would be very reluctant to overturn a duly-passed Constitutional Amendment, even one which made a comparatively radical structural change to the federal government like abolishing the Senate. (You could presumably also simply greatly weaken the Senate’s powers without actually abolishing it, as has been done with the House of Lords.)
Agreed, although it depends on the political mood at the time.
What about an amendment to abolish the Supreme Court? That they wouldn’t be so reluctant about. I can imagine the theory then being put forward that any substantial reduction of Senate power – such as taking away the power to confirm justices – is tantamount to taking away the influence of low-population states guaranteed by Article V. So the Supreme Court can’t, by this theory, be abolished without approval by every below-average-population state. If I’m a justice, it sounds good to me!
As has been pointed out, this is a misreading of the original intent, and, as a matter of grammar and punctuation, seems to treat the final semi-colon of Article V as if it was a comma. However, I like your creative reading of Article V! If they can find a right to abortion in the Constitution, maybe they could un-find the top half of a semi-colon.