[Terr_]

> But they weren't just "ancient" quirks.

How else would you describe the way populations grew more places labeled X and not places labeled Y over the course of 250 years?

> They were commitments made to your fellow Americans in smaller states. Commitments that were required to allow the formation of the country at all;

Is this just a complaint about phrasing, or are you claiming some commitment would be broken?

My proposal has no effect on any commitments made to states, neither in letter nor in spirit. It doesn't change the rules for Senate nor House representation, and it doesn't infringe on the sovereignty of any state. If anything is restores state-sovereignty in one narrow scenario, a scenario no signatory ever believed was an intended feature.

Namely, the betrayal which happens when when humans (residing within the borders of a high-population state) are partially disenfranchised, and coalition of low-pop states vows: "Even though it's entirely within your own borders, we will veto any attempts to fix it. No other states except us can be small, we are pulling up the ladder. In order for us to keep an advantage your residents must suffer."

[everforward]

> If anything is restores state-sovereignty in one narrow scenario, a scenario no signatory ever believed was an intended feature.

The most direct fault leading to that is the massive expansion of the Commerce Clause and the following elevation of every major issue to the federal level. The founders never expected this because the federal government wasn’t even supposed to be able to dictate most intra-state things.

The idea of the Senate makes sense, at least to me. States give up some sovereignty to be in the union, the Senate gives each state equal representation because they’ve each given up the same level of self-governance. The House reflects people equally as members of the union, and the Senate reflects states equally as members of the union.

Without the Senate, small states are giving up way more sovereignty than larger ones. Eg Rhode Island would have practically no sovereignty, they’d just be captives of Texas, California, etc. They don’t have enough people to swing a vote, so no federal party is going to campaign there or listen to what they want.

Making more states dilutes power in the Senate, and I don’t see a clean way to do that. If we allow arbitrary divisions of states, we invoke a race to the bottom where states can just fragment into a million tiny states and chaos ensues. If we enforce a lower population limit then the Senate just reflects the populace and becomes a pointless copy of the House.

[fc417fc802]

Representation in the house is supposed to be proportional to population. Unfortunately that's no longer the case and we should fix that.

Yammering on about unequal representation in the senate as though it's some great injustice is either partisan or ignorant. The senate was never supposed to provide representation relative to population and attempting to game the system by subdividing certain states but not others is no better than attempting to pack the supreme court or any other blatantly disingenuous behavior.

[Terr_]

> attempting to game the system by subdividing certain states but not others

Oh, so you're against sneaky "some but not others" schemes? Great! Me too! So why are you going the opposite direction?

You're supporting a status-quo where a partisan bloc on the federal level can already go: "It's OK for Florida, but prohibited for New-York", or vice-versa.

You're opposing something that'd fix the-thing-you-hate by giving both of those states equal capability.

> The senate was never supposed to provide representation relative to population

So what? That doesn't change. It's non-changing was a core requirement in the proposal, and I've pointed it out several times now. That aspect literally can't change via amendment. Why are you suggesting it'd change anyway?

This is about enabling people (enough of them, anyway) to (re-)choose their states. It's always been an entirely different segment of the pipeline!

[fc417fc802]

I'm supporting a status quo that was voluntarily and very intentionally entered into by our predecessors.

You are arguing that the current arrangement is somehow a "quirk" and that we should attempt a legally dubious end run around the constitution. It's a self serving line of reasoning directly equivalent to packing the supreme court.

> You're opposing something that'd fix the-thing-you-hate

What is this thing I hate exactly? Because I very much support the way the senate and house were set up originally prior to the house being frozen. I think that the disproportionate representation is a good thing provided that state's rights are respected and thus we really are a union rather than a monolithic whole. Unfortunately there are a number of issues in that regard such as the rampant abuse of the interstate commerce clause; I think we should try to fix those things rather than abandon the system.

For the record I'm not opposed to the subdivision or agglomeration of states in the event that there is a direct and legitimate reason for it. But such a reason must convincingly hinge on the internal politics of the state itself as opposed to being an end run around the constitution because a segment of the population doesn't like the way the system was intentionally designed to work.