Quote:
|
Parliament is already Rep-by-Pop (or is supposed to be, in theory). So the idea with the Senate is that it would be equal to all provinces. Why give Rhode Island the same amount of Senate seats as New York state? The reason is obvious. Rhode Island doesn't matter in the House of Representatives... but their 2 Senators could make a huge difference.
|
It's interesting that you mentioned Rhode Island. Let's contrast that state with our smallest province, PEI.
Rhode Island has a population of just over 1 million, or roughly 0.3% of the national population. PEI has a population of about 140,000, about 0.4% of the total national population. Yet in the US senate, Rhode island has only 2% of the total seats, whereas PEI, under your "two senators per province" proposal, would have 10% of the total representation. How can you justify that?
[Edit]
In other words, Rhode Island gets about five times the representation in the senate that they would have gotten if senate seats were divided based on population rather than by state. They're certainly over-represented, but it's not that bad considering that each state only controls 2% of the senate. If PEI were to be given 10% of the senate seats, though, they would have
twenty-five times as much representation as their population would dictate. That doesn't sit right with me.