You glitched a bit writing that URL (http: // https: // …). This one works better:
If every U.S. state had the same population, what would the map of America look like.
Interestingly your glitched URL doesn’t cause a 404 or such. Instead someone has a domain that seems to catch such glitches!
Revising the number of Senators per state is a non-starter,Article V forbids this to be amended:
What’s wrong with the Senate could be changed by changing its rules and that might require an amendment. Specifically, I’d limit the power of any one Senator to prevent items from coming to the floor. I’d phrase it such that “Any legislation supported by 10 or more Senators shall be voted on within 90 days of its submittal to the clerk of the Senate”. Then I’d add something like: “Nominations to the federal judiciary shall be confirmed unless a majority of Senators vote to deny the nomination within 90 days of it being made by the president”.
:o
Are the Articles of Confederation still in effect?
When the Constitution was written and sent out to be ratified, a lot of people protested. They said if the Constitution was ratified it would be the end of state sovereignty. They were making this argument in order to persuade people to vote against the proposed Constitution.
But the argument failed. People voted in favor of the Constitution and it was enacted. And when it was, we ceased to be thirteen separate states and became one country.
People who opposed this (mostly politicians who held offices in state governments) began back-pedaling and claimed that the arguments that they had just been making were wrong; they now tried to claim that the Constitution and that the states were just as sovereign now as they had been. But its impossible to agree with their new line of arguments when they were the ones who had been claiming otherwise. The reality is that state sovereignty was put to a vote and it lost.
I’ll also point out that the Constitution was not a contract between states. It was not submitted to the state governments for their ratification. It was a contract between “We, the People” and it was ratified by a series of popular votes.
But you have no problem with the same situation if the positions are reversed? It’s okay for a rural minority to impose its views over an urban majority?
The states never ceased to exist. There are state borders, state courts, state constitutions, state police, state roads, state sales taxes, state income taxes, state citizens, state property, state national guards, state birds, etc. Do they have absolute sovereignty? No. But that’s never been the argument.
Are you claiming that there is no such thing as dual sovereignty? I think this layer cake federalism is pretty well established, but if you think otherwise I’d be interested in understanding your position.
Whatever the talking points in opposition to the Constitution was at the time, we have to look at what it did. It created a government with limited and enumerated powers listed in Article I, Section 8. It created a list of things that the States could not do in Article I, Section 10. It also created an entrenched clause where the Senate could never be anything but equal representation of all states.
This was the only sovereignty that the states lost in the process.
Some did insist that this would destroy state sovereignty and the federalists replied that this was nonsense as the Constitution clearly limited national powers. The anti-federalists demanded a Bill of Rights.
The federalists rightly replied that this was unnecessary. As the national government had no power to ban free speech, ban militias, or ban guns, it should have been completely unnecessary to have parts of the Bill of Rights. Just in case, the 10th Amendment was tacked on to make this clear.
Yes, the Constitution was ratified by “We the People” but it was the people in each State. 9 of 13 states, regardless of population was required for ratification. 3/4ths of the states are required for an amendment, not 3/4ths of the people of the nation.
The idea implicit in your post that states are now mere districts of the United States is not supported by history.
If the populations were completely balanced, half the prople would live in the 25 largest states. 50/25 = 2.0
50/25 = 2.0
13/4 = 3.2
50/9 = 5.6
Which of these three numbers is least like the others?
California has far more rural people and rural land than Vermont, Rhode Island and Delaware added together. Yet the former get zero Senators while the latter get six Senators.
Thanks for the help. Apologies to all.
This is wildly misleading. You’re stating it as if they viewed that as a bonus. They created it that way not because they thought that sort of representation was good, but because giving that concession to small states was the only way they would join the union. A necessary evil.
Hamilton explains in The Federalist papers #22 that it’s a bunch of bullshit and it’s only gotten worse.
Try to divide up the political power in this country in any way that resembles “fair” and you end up with an increase in Dem power. That’s the problem - that a minority party (by a wide margin) can hold a majority of political power.
Time for a constitutional convention then? You think you’d like the outcome of that?
All in all, I hope I live long enough for a Constitutional Convention. It ought to be an absolute madhouse. When it is all over, I would bet we will have something much worse than what we have now.
I am quite content with the concept that a geographically broad section of the country can, in a close election, select a President despite there being fewer total votes for him/her than for the losing candidate, yes. Because one or the other must be true, and as between the two competing concepts, I prefer the latter. This is because I believe that the country remains a federation of states, and not a political whole in which states are nothing but administrative boundaries.
Now, if we start having elections in which candidates win the Presidency despite having massive vote total differentials, then I might re-think my position on the mechanic. But so far, the only president elected with a massive undervote was John Quincy Adams, and that was the result of a system of selection that no longer exists. Since then, the largest margin deficit was 3% by Rutherford B. Hayes, and that election required some substantial chicanery on the part of the winning party to succeed. Donald Trump’s 2% deficit isn’t enough to cause me worry; 46% to 48% is not enough to make me think the system is totally borked.
This is so horribly wrong it must be pointed out.
The Constitution was ratified by the STATES, each state being required to hold a ratification convention. Delegates to those conventions were chosen by a variety of methods by the peoples of the various states. But it was the convention delegates who voted to ratify or not. The Massachusetts convention is instructive. Had the delegates voted on the Constitution upon arrival, the state would have failed to ratify. It was only after the so-called “Massachusetts Compromise” (the agreement to add a Bill of Rights after ratification) that enough votes switched to get a positive result. Similar shenanigans occurred in New York.
So the idea that somehow the Constitution was a compact entered into by the People themselves, not the states, is simply not supported by the record. And most certainly, there were no “popular votes” held on ratification.
Uh, no, what is “wildly misleading” is to:
Assert that what one faction of those at the Convention thought represented the opinion of the “Founding Fathers”, and
Asserting that I said that “they view that as a bonus.”
Neither is correct. The “Founding Fathers” were not some unified group of people (Washington, Madison, Jefferson and some hangers on) with a single opinion of what should be done. The Convention itself can be considered the Founding Fathers, in some respect. But the point is that there wasn’t some small, minor faction of obstructionists getting in the way of some overwhelming majority of people who were forced by the practicalities to give in to some sort of awful compromise. What there was was a group of people, with some very different viewpoints on how the new nation could best be governed, who had to come to some sort of compromise of these viewpoints that would allow almost all the new “states” to join in with the revision. Remember: they were perfectly willing to let Rhode Island go its own way when the time came, so it’s not like some insignificantly small group threw a tantrum over the representation issue and forced the compromise.
As for what I said, all I said was that the people who entered into the compromise were not oblivious to the possibility of 18 out of 100 senators coming from states comprising a majority of the population. They already were in a situation where 8 of the 26 senators came from states comprising a majority, and given the likely expansion of states from Westward movement, could probably predict that was going to get even more lopsided shortly. Please don’t put words and thoughts in my mouth. 
You quoted me but you seem to be arguing with somebody else. I never said any of the things you’re claiming. Obviously, states exist; I never said they didn’t.
I think it’s a nice sounding slogan. But true dual sovereignty can’t exist in reality. Two individual organizations can’t be equally in charge of the same thing. There are going to be irreconcilable decisions and one organization has to have the final say. If it’s not clear beforehand, there will be a crisis the first time such an irreconcilable situation arises which will be resolved either by one side conceded supremacy to the other or by the two sides splitting apart and establishing separate sovereignties.
I suggest you look it up.