Question: The Senate was intended to "check" the House, but was it intended to be non-proportional?

[CreekDog]

simple question.

from the beginning, did every Founding Father support a senate with equal numbers of Senators in every state?

what was the vote that led to it? who supported and who opposed?

because a Senate with proportional representation could still be a check on the House because it would have:

1) longer terms
2) only one third of all members would be elected in each election


don't confuse the issue of the purpose of the Senate by thinking the Connecticut Compromise was supported by all from the very beginning.

[onenote]

1. From Wikipedia

The Senate was also intended to give states with smaller populations equal standing with larger states, which are given more representation in the House. (See "Connecticut Compromise&quot

The apportionment scheme of the Senate was controversial at the Constitutional Convention. Hamilton, who was joined in opposition to equal suffrage by Madison, said equal representation despite population differences "shocks too much the ideas of justice and every human feeling."[3] Referring to those who demanded equal representation, Madison called for the Convention "to renounce a principle which was confessedly unjust."

The delegates representing a majority of Americans might have carried the day, but at the Constitutional Convention, each state had an equal vote, and any issue could be brought up again if a state desired it. The state delegations originally voted 6–5 for proportional representation, but small states without claims of western lands reopened the issue and eventually turned the tide towards equality. On the final vote, the five states in favor of equal apportionment in the Senate - Connecticut, North Carolina, Maryland, New Jersey, and Delaware - only represented one-third of the nation's population. The four states that voted against it - Virginia, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Georgia - represented almost twice as many people than the proponents. Convention delegate James Wilson wrote "Our Constituents, had they voted as their representatives did, would have stood as 2/3 against equality, and 1/3 only in favor of it" (Harpers Magazine, May 2004, 36). One reason the large states accepted the Connecticut Compromise was a fear that the small states would either refuse to join the Union, or, as Gunning Bedford, Jr. of Delaware threatened, "the small ones w[ould] find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith, who will take them by the hand and do them justice" (New Republic, August 7, 2002).

In Federalist No. 62, James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” openly admitted that the equal suffrage in the Senate was a compromise, a “lesser evil,” and not born out of any political theory. “t is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but ‘of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.’“

[CreekDog]

5. your passage says that Madison and Hamilton and 6 states did not intend equal representation

thank you for the answer.

[onenote]

20. Madison was not a supporter at first, but accepted the compromise

and even saw the possibility of some advantages in equal representation among the states. From the Federalist #62:

"Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the facility and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation."

[Igel]

33. In fact, it says that the Convention was structured like the Senate.

Every state had an equal vote. The "compromise" was taken as "the lesser of evils" at a meeting that was run on precisely those terms, without anybody batting an eye.

Perhaps because it was necessary to preserve minority rights. Which has come to be the hallmark of a liberal democracy, as oppose to a majoritarian type of democracy where 50% + 1 determines all.

[agbdf]

2. The bi-cameral house was a compromise

Recognizing that a legislative body whose members would be solely elected based population would leave smaller, sovereign states under-represented , the solution was a second legislative body where all states would be equally represented.

[CreekDog]

6. that's wrong

read the history.

[TroglodyteScholar]

31. "...whereby all states would be equally represented..."

...and whereby all American citizens would be unequally represented. Ugh, I can't believe this idea was referred to as "equality."

[pipoman]

3. How many ways must you ask the same question?

I know, you didn't like the reality you experienced in the other thread....but....

[CreekDog]

7. if you don't know the answer, i suggest you look it up

rather than getting annoyed at me.

[TDale313]

4. Yes, that was absolutely intentional.

For the same reason we have the Electoral College and not a direct vote for President. They absolutely knew they were giving the smaller states a louder say in some ways. It was part of how they got those smaller states on board.

[CreekDog]

9. No, that's wrong

nope. wrong wrong wrong.

[cthulu2016]

16. No, it is you who are wrong.

Everyone knows the the Articles of Confederation were DIFFERENT FROM THE CONSTITUTION.

That isn't news, or even interesting.

The Connecticut Compromise preceded the Constitution and is a meaningless bit of trivia. And what preceded the Connecticut Compromise is even more trivial and irrelevant and of no pertinence to anything today.

The Constitution is The Constitution. Whatever preceded it is IRRELEVANT because the Constitution supersedes all previous compacts, designs, conventions, articles, etc.., pertaining to the colonies forming a government.

[demwing]

8. Just out of curiosity, why does it matter?

Few laws are written only once

[pintobean]

17. No, you're asking nonsense.

It doesn't matter how they got there. We are living with the end result. That seems to be something you can't comprehend, or that you don't want to abide by.

By your reasoning, a losing argument before the Supreme Court has as much merit as the court decision.

[Gothmog]

19. The non proportional representation of the Senate is law

I am confuse why you do not think that this is law. This is part of the US Constitution and is indeed the supreme law of the land. Article I Section 3 Clause 1 is very clear to me.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,3 for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Each State without regard to population gets two Senators. We can debate the legislative history or reason for this provision but the provision itself is clear.

[demwing]

26. Whatever anger you carried here

Is misdirected at me, especially when your response was so embarrassingly wrong.

[CreekDog]

28. i should have said Senate Apportionment is not a matter of US Code

anyway. fair enough on the correction.

[demwing]

29. No, what you should have said

Was something reponsive, and without the completely inappropriate insult.

[BillZBubb]

11. Not sure how to interpret what you are asking.

"From the beginning"--the beginning of what? The Constitutional ratification? The Constitutional convention?

The original proposition was for each state to get senators based on population as well. The small states didn't like this at all. The feared being steamrolled by the bigger states.

The compromise was for each state got two senators regardless of population. Some were pleased with that, some not as much but accepted it to get a constitution in place.

[CreekDog]

14. Yes! Thank you for being the first to actually cite this history

to point out that the idea of a Senate and it's apportionment were not all decided simultaneously.

[cthulu2016]

12. The Senate was *designed* to be even worse than it is

The Senate was designed to be an anti-democratic (not even elected in the original constitution) guarantor of the power of a bunch of mini-nations called States.

It was never supposed to be democratic. Everyone understood just fine that Pennsylvania was more populous than Rhode Island.

It was all intentional. The price of the States banding together in the first place.

[msanthrope]

13. Without analysis of the 17th amendment, I fear your question misses the mark. nt

[CreekDog]

15. the question is asking about something that predates the 17th amendment

and you know that.

[msanthrope]

18. Do you think that the Congressional Record of the debates over the 17th would yield you no insight?

Since the Tea Party currently wishes repeal of the 17th, you might wish to rethink where you look for sources.

[msanthrope]

24. I'm actually not playing games with you. I'm suggesting that analysis of why the 17th was passed

would perhaps inform your debate.

If I came off as an asshole, I truly apologize.

[CreekDog]

30. thank you

yes, there are materials in there that would be relevant to how it was created, as well as the decisions and arguments made, that are also relevant to the overall question.

[msanthrope]

37. Thank you for reminding me that I should be less confrontational. nt

[CreekDog]

38. so should I

[Jenoch]

21. The U.S. Senate is about states, not people.

[Savannahmann]

23. Dude, you have a thing about the Senate today

So, what is your suggestion? What would you like to see? A population based Senate? So that way we would already have a Republican controlled House, and a Senate that is also controlled by them. Nice plan General Custer.

Or you could eliminate the Senate, since we already have a branch of the legislature based upon population. Or here's an idea, we could have the States appoint Senators, and with a majority of States that currently have Republican Governor's that plan is also an idea for defeat. Which is probably why we got rid of that idea with the 17th Amendment.

Perhaps your plan is to take Senators from States with low populations, like Wyoming, and give them to other states. Wyoming could call New York and say we'd really like it if you would remember us now and then. That way we could keep the body at 100, and totally fuck over the Red States right?

Dude, your argument is seriously flawed, and seriously out of touch with reality. The Senate is where we Democrats have managed to gain some success and get around the Gerymandered districts.

[oldhippie]

25. Do I perceive that you dislike how the Senate is set up?

Really, I think I get it. So why all this? Do you want to start a petition for a Constitutional Convention?

Really?

[Niceguy1]

27. i think the current

Set up is perfect...it balances out the house and ensures that the smaller states are actually have a voice. If the Senate were to be changed they would be ignored amd most likely wo jock ldnt get anythibg, ie projects, funding, etc.

[TroglodyteScholar]

32. Sorry for the public shaming, CreekDog, but...

...your behavior on this thread has been beneath contempt. You misconstrue honest responses as attacks, then sling an insult, and then either delete your insulting post or "forgive" the victim of your rage after they defend themselves over something they didn't even do.

It's pathetic, and you're better than that. I know because I've read your posts that were actually worth a shit.

[Amak8]

34. It was about slavery.

Southern states wanted protection from more populous Northern States from taking it away.

[aikoaiko]

35. They came to a consensus.

[CreekDog]

36. no they didn't come to a consensus

joking aside, they were far from consensus.

[FBaggins]

39. Yes... of course.

That is... until you completely change the question in the title to instead ask whether there was unanimity among the Founding Fathers on the issue.

Of course there wasn't unanimity... but there was hardly anything that they all agreed on.

Do you find it all all ironic that you spend so much energy railing against a supposedly "undemocratic" design... only to then set an implicit threshold of unanimity in order for the constitutional design to be acceptable?

because a Senate with proportional representation could still be a check on the House

That too moves the goalposts... because the Senate is not just a check on the House.... nor is it just small vs. large states that are protected by the constitutional scheme.

The problem you're struggling with is that you appear to want a popular majority (on a given issue) to be able to make laws and somehow think that that's how the Founders intended things to work. You look at a poll and find (say) 55% agreeing with you on something... yet it isn't the law of the land... so there's somehow a failure of democracy.

However... however you elect to label the Founders' intent... they clearly did not want that result.