just trying to think outside the box about reforming the Senate.

[RicROC]

If the states are now really not purple but clusters of red and blue. I was wondering how many US cities are larger than the state of Wyoming, which turns out to be 32. What if any city which fits that category is allowed a (one or two) Senators of its own? The rest of the state still keeps its own 2.

The numbers can be adjusted but that's the basic premise, to give cities and rural areas their distinctive voice. ( I'll bet in some states, it would turn out that the one big city will have a population greater than the rest of the state, so therefore why should the city only have one Senator while the rest of the state has 2?)

Turns out Texas has several cities which fit this category. I'm sure the 'Texas republic' would not care to have its cities with multiple Senators and the rest of the state with only the traditional two.

Anyway, just thinking about this on a Friday morning. No chance this will happen.

[beachbumbob]

1. might as well discuss fairies and trolls, no action will ever happen as its constitutional level

requiring majorities we will never have along with states

[unblock]

2. how about just each senator gets to vote half its state poulation?

instead of each senator having exactly one vote, what if each senator gets one vote for half that senator's state population?

so the two wyoming senators would split wyoming's 600,000 votes, while the two california senators would split california's 40 million votes.

so it would still be a 100-person institution but it would be representative of the population rather than the states.


of course, any of this requires a constitutional amendment, which requires consent of small states that would get screwed by this. which is why we've been stuck with this mess for 232 years now....