[quartesixte]

Senators were designed as senior statesmen representing the interest of State Governments, and as a check against the popularly-elected Representatives in the House so that the smaller states could have a voice.

That's why general public couldn't even vote for senators until the 17th amendment in 1913. I wonder from time to time the ramifications of turning Senators into basically super-representatives.

I think it's always good to keep in mind that the Founders and Framers really did consider the individual States as semi-autonomous entities bound together in a tight FEDERATION that would cooperate on interstate commerce, mutual defense, and foreign diplomacy.

And so, Wyoming, Maine and Rhode Island get just as many senators as New York, Texas, and California because they are just as important to this Union as any other state.

Edit: Apparently (but not surprisingly) there is some partisanship surrounding this issue and I want to make clear that 1) I came to this thought via just some first-principles thinking 2) I do sympathize with the motivations behind the 17th and the challenges of reverting to pre-17th (in the same way we really can't go back to pre-12th Amendment style POTUS elections).

[dangus]

You said that each state has equal importance to the union, right? So what would you say if California had a state vote and decided to split into 5 states. There would be states for the LA, Bay Area, San Diego, Sacramento, and a 5th state for all the other areas. California would gain 8 new senators just by dividing its boundaries, and it would probably all be the same political party.

Or the same for Wyoming. Why not Wyoming just declare that it is now 4 states and quadruple its representation?

See the problem here? This assignment of senators is arbitrary and has nothing to do with representing states. States aren’t people.

This system isn’t really designed with the incentives or guard rails to do what you say it does. There’s nothing that requires a senator to be this image of a dignified senior statesperson that represents the interests of the state in the way that the founders imagined.

Case in point: JD Vance became a senator with zero public service experience. He has no longstanding relationship with state congresspeople in Ohio.

The founders made the constitution in a time before our advanced financial and media landscape. It was also conceived at a time when states were barely even agreeing to be united into a single country. It was also made at a time before mass urbanization.

With all this context in mind I can’t really see what the Senate’s purpose is besides disenfranchising voters in larger states. Congress isn’t really there to make sure that smaller states are satisfied, it’s there to pass federal laws in areas where the federal government has authority over states.

It’s not even legally allowed for a state to secede. So why are the needs of arbitrary state boundaries more important than those of the people?

I would argue that the founders might have been wrong to decide that we need a check on the desires of voters. They were clearly wrong on the electoral college, which should just go away entirely or at least change to a more granular system like the states that split their electoral votes.

I would say that the best thing we could do is expand the House of Representatives to around 2,000 representatives and then eliminate the senate entirely. Or, perhaps, turn the senate into a subcommittee of more tenured representatives elected by members of the House of Representatives.

[quartesixte]

>Or the same for Wyoming. Why not Wyoming just declare that it is now 4 states and quadruple its representation?

So there's nothing stopping anyone from trying this, but admission into the Union requires the other States in the Union + POTUS to agree with you. And, I'd imagine if a coalition of states finds California splitting into 5 parts to be disadvantageous to the balance of power within the Union, they'd block it immediately.

We can see historical examples of this: the slow-rolling crisis of the mid 19th century of the expansion of states in the western territories. We can see modern examples of this: D.C and Puerto Rico not being granted statehood.

>There’s nothing that requires a senator to be this image of a dignified senior statesperson that represents the interests of the state in the way that the founders imagined.

I agree with you on this, and also, historically this was proven to be the case and why the 17th was ratified. And, I guess in a lot of ways, a popular election of the senator by the state's populace is just "state government appoints the senator" without the extra steps in-between.

But if we take this "popular election is just the old system without the extra steps" part, then:

>With all this context in mind I can’t really see what the Senate’s purpose is besides disenfranchising voters in larger states.

Couldn't it be said that it franchises [sic?] the popular vote of smaller states to protect them against larger states passing laws that directly benefit them?

>Congress isn’t really there to make sure that smaller states are satisfied, it’s there to pass federal laws in areas where the federal government has authority over states.

Yes, but how do we ensure that larger states don't start passing laws that directly take advantage of the smaller ones?

>So why are the needs of arbitrary state boundaries more important than those of the people?

>I would argue that the founders might have been wrong to decide that we need a check on the desires of voters. They were clearly wrong on the electoral college, which should just go away entirely or at least change to a more granular system like the states that split their electoral votes.

So this, I think, is purely a matter of political philosophy. The founders were seriously afraid of mob rule. They also saw statehood and state-identity as some sort of pseudo-ethnic identity. Are the state boundaries maybe a bit arbitrary? Perhaps in the very squarish mid-western states but the original 13 saw their state boundaries as being steeped in history and tradition. I think there is something else to be said about these identities becoming fluid at the borders of the states, central power in concentrated economic/population zones radiating outwards and coinciding with the strength of state-ethnic identity, etc. etc. More Holy Roman Empire than United Kingdom.

So I think perhaps this increasing call for national popular votes of the president, abolishment of the Senate, questioning statehood in general points to an increasing shift away from the idea that we're citizens of the USA as a function of being a "Virginian" or a "New Yorker" or a "Californian" (a slow, long rolling processes started in 1861) Mixed with increasing frustrations about larger states and metro areas feeling they're not properly represented.

And, forgive me, but I don't know if this sentiment is entirely correct. So I reserve my skepticism for switching to unicameral systems, to nationally elected POTUSes, to turning States into Provinces. Until I am convinced otherwise.

Edit: And I'm a Californian.

[dangus]

I think the fundamental question we are debating is this: at what threshold does protecting minority voices and interests look more like minority rule denying the majority opinion than the needs of minority interests being protected? At what threshold does the desire to stop mob rule become the silencing of the common person?

And really, there's a good argument that’s where we are at today. The minority opinion controls a lot of national policy.

For example, the Supreme Court confirmed by the small state-biased senate and a president who lost the popular vote overturned Roe v Wade. Meanwhile, 57% of Americans disagree with the ruling and that number is 62% among women (Pew Research).

Congress has an extremely poor record of passing laws that people want and instead pass laws that their skewed constituency supports. The majority of Americans support free-tuition college, universal healthcare, and better gun control, but Congress has made little progress on those issues.

The founders weren’t abolishing monarchy to hand over power to the common person. The founders envisioned a republic where male property owners were allowed to vote and even then it was quite indirect. The founders owned slaves. They replaced monarchy with aristocracy, which isn’t all that helpful to the common person. That legacy lives on in the design of their system.

The US only got better after making a whole lot of changes: abolishing slavery, guaranteeing civil rights, giving women the right to vote, etc. The USA arguably wasn’t even something that could be considered a democracy until the second half of the 20th century. And it still has a long way to go.

If we truly believe that one person is equal to one person, how can we justify giving people different levels of voices based solely on where they live? Just because we don't want urban areas to have the most power? I cna't figure out why we don't we want that, or why we don't want that more than we don't want rural voices to overpower urban ones. By demographic reality those urban areas have the most people and if those people aren't being heard that is already a failure.

An entire district larger than the state of Wyoming has no voting representatives in the Senate.

[quartesixte]

I guess here is an even more fundamental question: What is the purpose of the Federal Government, and what is the purpose of our representation within that government?

I think answers to those questions illuminate quite clearly how you will end up feeling about urban vs rural, majority rule vs minority protection, Senators, SCOTUS, etc. etc.

>those urban areas have the most people and if those people aren't being heard that is already a failure.

But they are heard? Democrats (largely associated with urban areas) control 49% of the House of Representatives. Until 2 years ago they had ~51%. And they've had a couple of super majorities. And each Representative represents the same number of people.

But voters aren't fungible. Voters' interests aren't fungible. It would be preposterous for a resident of Chicago to show up to a school board meeting in Seattle and make any sort of demands.

>how can we justify giving people different levels of voices based solely on where they live?

The reality is that our environment, upbringing, and experiences lead to a particular mix of interests and those interests tend to get geographically clustered. Those interests also have real, economic ramifications to everyone's daily lives. We don't even all speak the same kind of English!

Look, I'm not saying the system is perfect, but I still hold a lot of skepticism towards drastic changes to a system that can wield immense power and control over the world.

And for what it's worth, I could be very wrong in my views. The beauty of a democracy is that with enough votes and political action, those who think I am wrong can move to shape the USA into their vision if they win enough power in Government. And the great strength of the USA is that 1) I can disagree with the end result freely and 2) if I find it so important to my daily life, the well-being of my posterity, and the common-good of all, I can take action to find like minded individuals to convince people of our view and make real political outcomes. All in a peaceful manner! All protected by the First Amendment! (for it takes freedoms of speech, press, assembly and religion to accomplish these two things).

I think we have a pretty good thing going here if the above two remain true in our government.

[ClumsyPilot]

> first-principles thinking

What does this mean? There are first principles in maths and physics, what are first principles in, what is this actually, political philosophy?

The first principles must be universally agreeable and indisputable, like 1 + 1= 2, what would be an example?

[quartesixte]

US Constitutional Law and the very specific field it has created. So, in this case, Articles I, II, and III of the US Constitution + 27 amendments.

Which, I concede doesn't fall under a narrow-definition of First Principles thinking but I think the term has been meme'd enough to allow for some play here.