# What reasons did the founding fathers have for 2 senators per state? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 20, 2010, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-reasons-did-the-founding-fathers-have-for-2-senators-per-state/536752 "2010-04-20T15:43:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-reasons-did-the-founding-fathers-have-for-2-senators-per-state/536752/21 "2010-04-20T20:01:48Z")
It’s worth noting that many federal countries (Germany and Canada to name at least two) also have upper houses in which the representation of each state doesn’t follow strict rep-by-pop rules. The US is quite radical with the idea that every state, regardless of population, should have _the exact same_ number of senators, but the idea that in a federal country the constituent states should keep a fair amount of sovereignty and the political weight to represent themselves in the federal legislature is quite common. > [@ivn1188](#): > > 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’d say that the electoral college would be a fairly good idea if it worked as it was supposed to; that is, states send (more or less in proportion to their population) representatives to elect the American president. But the way the American political culture is today, it has the effect that usually the candidate with the most popular support becomes president _but sometimes not_, which makes the process look somewhat illegitimate. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-reasons-did-the-founding-fathers-have-for-2-senators-per-state/536752/22 "2010-04-20T20:08:16Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > …It would have been a virtually moot power, like giving the Chief Justice the power to break any ties in a nine member court… Actually, Supreme Court justices do recuse themselves from time to time, so there are sometimes an even number considering a case. Both _United States v. Nixon_ and _United States v. U.S. District Court_, big Watergate-era cases, were decided by just eight justices, when then-Justice Rehnquist sat out because he had previously served in the Nixon Justice Department. But the court has its own rules for tie votes (usually it means the lower court’s decision is left undisturbed, IIRC). As it happens, in _Baker v. Carr_ and later cases, the Supremes held that state senates cannot follow the example of the Great Compromise (such as, for instance, following county lines alone). All state senates now are based on population, just like all state houses of representatives. **friedo** , thank you. That was the biggest laugh I’ve had all day. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-reasons-did-the-founding-fathers-have-for-2-senators-per-state/536752/23 "2010-04-20T20:13:56Z")
Look at the way the Senate is established in Article 1 of the Constitution. 1. Two Senators for each state 2. Each serving a term of six years 3. Apportioned so that 1/3 of the Senate is up for election every two years. The whole setup is designed so that the Senate has more continuity than the House of Representatives, even more than the President. The six-year term is longer than the President or any representative, the staggered elections means that each state would always have an experienced Senator in office (unless like the House, where a delegation could turn over with every election), and two Senators for each state means that each state would always have a representative in the Senate, even if one died or resigned in mid-term. Sure, it also meant the Senate could have tie votes, but the Constution also had a tie-breaker in place. Add to \*\*Joe Frickin Friday’s \*\*point about the Senate serving state governments, and you get an answer that is simple, logical and practical in 1787 terms. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-reasons-did-the-founding-fathers-have-for-2-senators-per-state/536752/24 "2010-04-20T20:14:51Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > But the court has its own rules for tie votes (usually it means the lower court’s decision is left undisturbed, IIRC). That’s correct. It takes a majority decision by the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court’s decision. Since an even split isn’t a majority, the lower court decision stands, and the Supreme Court decision has no precedential value; all it means is that the lower court decision stands. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-reasons-did-the-founding-fathers-have-for-2-senators-per-state/536752/25 "2010-04-20T20:17:44Z")
I was under the impression that Congress was based on the English Parliament. Two houses, the House of Commons and The House of Lords. Senator is a more prestigious position (same as House of Lords). There are only 100 of them, and they hold office for six years. The common folk in the House of Representatives only hold office 2 years. 😉 A lot of Senators got their start in the House. They eventually build a political base and win a Senate seat. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-reasons-did-the-founding-fathers-have-for-2-senators-per-state/536752/26 "2010-04-20T20:22:47Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > I think **Gagundathar** meant that three senators from a single delegation couldn’t be evenly split. What \*\*Gagun \*\*said was that three “seems a bit more proper, since three can’t be split evenly on an issue.” ISTM that such a comment is only relevant when discussing the Senate \*as a whole \*versus any particular state’s delegation. Who cares whether or not a given state’s vote can be split evenly? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-reasons-did-the-founding-fathers-have-for-2-senators-per-state/536752/27 "2010-04-20T20:25:33Z")
What about those rare cases (such as a dispute between two states) where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction? What’s the tie-breaking rule there? ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-reasons-did-the-founding-fathers-have-for-2-senators-per-state/536752/28 "2010-04-20T20:29:10Z")
That’s a great question. It’s never come up that I know of. The court usually appoints an outside expert (“special master”) to look into such cases and advise the court, and then invariably follows his or her advice unanimously or near-unanimously, IIRC. ---
**Author:** ![Gagundathar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a183cd/32.png) [@Gagundathar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gagundathar)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-reasons-did-the-founding-fathers-have-for-2-senators-per-state/536752/29 "2010-04-20T20:40:52Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > What \*\*Gagun \*\*said was that three “seems a bit more proper, since three can’t be split evenly on an issue.” ISTM that such a comment is only relevant when discussing the Senate \*as a whole \*versus any particular state’s delegation. Who cares whether or not a given state’s vote can be split evenly? Good point. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of how one party tends to take complete control over the senatorial delegation and thought that a third senator might make a more balanced mix more probable. As usual, I have learned a lot from reading this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-reasons-did-the-founding-fathers-have-for-2-senators-per-state/536752/30 "2010-04-20T21:03:33Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > That’s a great question. It’s never come up that I know of. The court usually appoints an outside expert (“special master”) to look into such cases and advise the court, and then invariably follows his or her advice unanimously or near-unanimously, IIRC. Check. The rule in appellate cases, by the way, is that a tie vote affirms the ruling of the lower court from which cert was granted. In the event there’s a tie vote on a suite of cases involving disagreement between circuits, the entire suite is DIGged (dismissed as improvidently granted), with the effect of continuing the disagreement for the nonce. That happens rarely, though – they’ll nail down a narrow principle they can agree on to break the tie before they’ll allow the disagreement to stand. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-reasons-did-the-founding-fathers-have-for-2-senators-per-state/536752/31 "2010-04-21T03:41:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Once delegates established equal representation in the Senate, they needed to determine how many senators would represent each state. State constitutions offered some guidance. Several states designated one senator per county or district, while in Delaware there were three senators for each of the three counties. Convention delegates did not refer to the state precedents in debate, however. Instead, they seemed to take a common-sense approach in deciding the number of senators. > > ``` > According to constitutional commentator Joseph Story (1779-1845), few, if any, delegates considered one senator per state sufficient representation. Lone senators might leave their state unrepresented in times of illness or absence, and would have no colleague to consult with on state issues. Additional senators, moreover, would increase the size of the Senate, making it a more knowledgeable body, and better able to counter the influence of the House. On the other hand, a very large Senate would soon lose its distinctive membership and purpose, and actually decrease its ability to check the lower house or to allow senators to take personal responsibility for their actions. > > Given these considerations, delegates had a limited choice regarding the number of senators. During the convention, they briefly discussed the advantages of two seats versus three. Gouverneur Morris stated that three senators per state were necessary to form an acceptable quorum, while other delegates thought a third senator would be too costly. On July 23, delegates filled in the blank in the proposal offered by Morris and Rufus King: “That the representation in the second branch consist of _____ members from each State, who shall vote per capita.” Only Pennsylvania voted in favor of three senators. When the question turned to two, Maryland alone voted against the measure, not because of the number, but because Martin disagreed with per capita voting, which gave each senator, rather than each state, one vote. > > In its final form, the clause in the Constitution is deceptively simple. “The Senate shall be composed of two senators from each state” appears to be a single provision, the designated number of senators per state. Delegates agreed to this number, however, only after they had considered a larger matter: legislative representation. While representation proved to be the most controversial issue in the convention, delegates determined the number of senators quickly and with little dispute. > > ``` > **[U.S. Senate: The Senate and the United States Constitution](https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Constitution_Senate.htm)** > > The Senate and the United States Constitution ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-reasons-did-the-founding-fathers-have-for-2-senators-per-state/536752/32 "2010-04-21T04:25:19Z")
> [@](#): > > The US is quite radical with the idea that every state, regardless of population, should have the exact same number of senators, but the idea that in a federal country the constituent states should keep a fair amount of sovereignty and the political weight to represent themselves in the federal legislature is quite common. The authors of the Constitution may not have foreseen how divergent state populations would become. In 1790, the least populous state was Delaware with 59,096 people. The most populous state, Virginia, had 747,610. So the ratio of largest to smallest was less than 13:1. Today (actually 2008) Wyoming has a population of 532,668 and California has a population of 36,756,666; a ratio of over 69:1. ---
**Author:** ![Autolycus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@Autolycus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Autolycus)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-reasons-did-the-founding-fathers-have-for-2-senators-per-state/536752/33 "2010-04-21T06:22:04Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > 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. When I have kids, this is how I’m going to teach it. I’m eternally grateful ^^ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-reasons-did-the-founding-fathers-have-for-2-senators-per-state/536752.md?page=1)