The idea of having representatives apportioned to the population of a state seems to be a fine way to establish, in fact, a representative body. The notion of every state having equal representation in the senate seems problematical these days, maybe more so than ever before, with the vastly different populations in different states. Certainly it’s possible that the 26 states with the smallest populations could hold up the works, despite representing, just a WAG, 25% of the public. I imagine that the founders had some reason for structuring this second house in that way, and I imagine that they also must have envisioned the possibility that a few states with very little population could hold the whole senate hostage. So what was the reasoning behind establishing this potentially inequitable structure?
A large part would have been that the 13 colonies were de facto independent countries, and so saw themselves as equal partners in a new venture. A bit over 100 years later, the 6 Australian colonies decided to have equal representation in the Australian Senate for pretty much the same reason: the gentlemen drafting the constitution saw themselves as citizens of their colony, not as citizens of the federation.
That’s why we have two houses, each set up the opposite way - it’s the Great Compromise.
Because it was necessary. Below is a transcript from the Constitutional Convention of 1787:
Dude: Let’s form a new federation with a stronger central government.
Other dude: OK, but we’ll need a legislature.
Small state dude: As equal members of this new federation, obviously we should all have the same representation in the legislature.
Big state dude: Balderdash and poppycock! This is a nation by the people and for the people! Representation should be proportional. Oh and we get to count our slaves.
All dudes: GRUMBLE GRUMBLE GRUMBLE GRUMBLE.
Roger Sherman: Hey guys, let’s like, do both.
The end.
Smaller states didn’t want to join a union in which they wouldn’t have any appreciable say. The addition of a second house with non-proportional representation was basically a kludge to get them to agree to ratify the Constitution.
I thought this was asking “why two senators per state,” as opposed to one per state or three per state or nine per state.
That’s what I was hoping, so I’ll ask it.
Why two senators per state, as opposed to one per state or three per state or nine per state?
Wait - before you hijack the thread, I’d like to see some more commentary, if there is some forthcoming. I do believe that the question makes clear my interest in why there is equal status among the states in the senate, and *not *why that status resides in two, or three or x number of senators.
I thought the same thing.
Three senators seems a bit more proper, since three can’t be split evenly on an issue. Of course, my two senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, are pretty much party hacks (both Reps) that don’t appear to have enough brains between the two of them to pass gas and mutter incoherently at the same time. Adding a third might not be much of an improvement.
And the answer (as stated above) is because without a Senate with equal status for the states we wouldn’t have had the United States. The smaller states wouldn’t have agreed to join.
From here
Basically, they wanted to keep the Senate small, but thought that one senator per state would lead to the risk of a state loosing all representation if their sole representitive died, given that getting word back to the homestate, letting that state choose a replacement and then having to wait for the new guy to arrive could take the better part of a Congressional Session. The next smallest number after one is two, so two it was.
Granted that means their could be ties, but they already had a mechanism to deal with that in the form of the VP, and even if they had three Senators per state, they could still end up with even numbers of senators if another state joined the Union (and VT was already printing out flags and currency with fourteen stars on them, so an even number of states wasn’t exactly a distant prospect).
The Great Compromise, mentioned above.
Sure they can–*if *you have an even number of states. Which, I’m sure you’ll note, we currently do.
some things that the senate does as an equal representative body is consent to treaties, consent appointments and try impeachments.
The intent was to represent state governments (as opposed to national citizens) at the federal level, and to provide a governing body that was somewhat shielded from the whims of the general public. Whereas representatives have always been chosen by popular election, senators were initially chosen by state legislatures, which helped to achieve those intents; that was definitively ended in 1913 by the 17th amendment, which mandated popular elections for senators.
I think Gagundathar meant that three senators from a single delegation couldn’t be evenly split.
It does seem that three would at least make logistics easier; the current system where 2/3 of the states have senatorial elections every two years can be confusing to the n00bs. With three per state, you could still do overlapping six-year terms, and every state would get a senatorial election every two years.
Have I complimented you yet on what a fine job you did with “1776” Mr. Stone? 
The linked article doesn’t say this but I wonder if this might have been part of the reason for settling on two. The Constitutional delegates loved to put checks and balances between branchs of the government. The Vice President’s tie-breaking vote in the Senate was one of these.
But if you have an odd number of states (which they did in 1787) and an odd number of Senators for each state, you’d always end up with an odd number of votes in the Senate and no potential ties for the Vice President to break. It would have been a virtually moot power, like giving the Chief Justice the power to break any ties in a nine member court. Giving each state a pair of Senators guarantees there will always be an even number of Senators.
Joe Frickin Friday has the right idea. The other thing the senate does by being non-proportional is that it helps adjust the balance a little bit between rural and urban areas of the country. You’ve probably noticed the splits in voting between red and blue areas, one being urban, the other being rural. The problem with absolutely representational government is that it’s fairly easy, even by accident, to exclude rural residents (farmers and ranchers), many of whom serve an important function in the national economy (though a little less so today, but more than you probably imagine). It also, of course, serves to protect rural states with lots of mineral wealth, and very small states, from being overrun by the population centers. In effect, it counteracts the slight wealth production per capita imbalance between urban and rural populations.
It’s very similar to the electoral college, which sort of accomplishes the same purpose, which is to solve the problem that exact proportional representation isn’t necessarily the fairest, most stable, and accurately reflective way to apportion political power.
I’m not really seeing this… There’s a lot of farmland in Texas and California, and not much in Delaware or Rhode Island. It doesn’t seem to me that there’s a lot of correlation between the population of a state and its urban/rural split.