Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan
I think there should be a bit more representation by population, but I don't want to sway too heavily in that direction. I think it's important knowing the tenuous history of federalism in America to realize that if you don't give a strong voice to the less populous states you begin to create grievances that divide the nation (ironic considering today's political climate). The whole point of giving states equal representation was to acquiesce some federal control back to the states so they could speak for themselves. Again, it is a nation of individual states that are more or less coalesced together. It's 50 individual nations that present a united front internationally, but are very different from each other within the nation. To change senate away from state representation would likely renew the grievances towards the federal government and only further divide the nation, possibly pushing us closer to civil war..
|
California vs Texas? Sure, those should be separate districts. But how is Idaho different than Montana? Or the Arkansas-Mississippi-Alabama bible belt? And there's no way you need two Dakotas. If you want to split the US into proper geographic and demographic representation, then there should only really be 10-12 states total, then it would make more sense to give each equal representation in the senate