Why Does Each State Have Two Senators, Regardless of Population?

[MineralMan]

That seems unfair to a lot of people, but there is a reason for it. When the United States was founded, many worried about the populous states having an undue influence on legislation that might be passed by the new Congress. So, a bicameral legislature was created. One part, the House of Representatives was based on the concept of "one person, one vote." The number of House members each state got was based on that state's population.

That was just what the founders were afraid of, so they set up a second body in Congress - the Senate. Its membership was based on the idea that each state in this new United States would have equal representation, with two Senators from each state having seats in the Senate. The idea was balancing the power of the citizen against the power of the separate states. Both bodies were required to pass all new legislation. That was designed to prevent either body from misusing its power to control things.

And that was the idea. The United States of America is not a democracy. It is a Representative Republic. Both the people and the states are represented in its Congress to form a legislative body that supposedly would create balanced legislation. Sometimes it works as intended; sometimes it doesn't.

But that's why it is as it is.

Changing that would require a major constitutional amendment. Such an amendment would probably fail in the house that would be changed the most. About the only way that change could be made would be through a Constitutional Convention, something that has never been called during the nation's existence.

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Minority of white racist males want it that way, that is why

If we had representative government, the senate would be 70-30 dems till the end of time and the house would be 350 dems at all times, something like that.

While this does not reflect the House the same way as the system is different, gerrymandering would be abolished at least the illegal version the GOP uses and that would assure Dems permanent control of the House.

[MineralMan]

2. Nope. I simply described the theory that led to the creation

of the House and Senate. We're not called the United STATES for nothing. Each state insisted on having equal representation in the Senate. It was a basic compromise in the creation of our system of government. That it has not always worked out as intended is a different matter.

Later, how Senators were selected was change to an election-based system. It wasn't that way in the beginning. The 17th Amendment did that.

[jberryhill]

37. And you got it wrong

Particularly where you say "One part, the House of Representatives was based on the concept of "one person, one vote.""

No, it wasn't. That's not even close to being correct.

Eliot is absolutely correct, that the Great Compromise (since we might as well not act like we don't know what things are called) was also driven by another concern about the definition of "population".

To break that down in your terms:

----

One part, the House of Representatives was based on the concept of apportionment by population. At that time, there was no concept of "one person, one vote" since neither women nor slaves could vote. However, to make certain states have a larger representation than would be possible under "one person, one vote", the non-voting population was included in the figure used for apportionment. In other words, women counted as "population" for the purpose of apportionment, but not voting. Likewise, slaves, which were usually considered to be livestock and thus were objected as being included as population for that purpose, were counted as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of apportionment.
------

To characterize the original apportionment scheme as "one person, one vote" is a classic manifestation of White Man Syndrome. The concept of "one person, one vote" did not apply to voting OR to apportionment, since a significant number of people did not qualify as "one person".

[hunter]

52. Thank you for this post.

U.S. history as most citizens know it has always been whitewashed.

[Eliot Rosewater]

55. Translation, boy were we and are we a RACIST nation.

This may also be the first time you have used these words:

Eliot is absolutely correct

[jberryhill]

60. Mount that one in your trophy case

Lol.

It's like spotting a snow leopard.

[former9thward]

81. Which states favored counting everyone (including slaves) as one person?

Which states favored not counting slaves as people for voting purposes? Which led to the Compromise. Who forced slaves to be considered 3/5 of a person?

[guillaumeb]

15. It was designed to give the slave states more power.

Racism was the foundation, and the source of conflict between the states.

[Sgent]

23. Not sure about that

Slave states, with the exception of Georgia, were larger population states -- with VA being the largest. It was mostly the New England states that pushed for a Senate (NH, Vermont, etc.).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_Census

[guillaumeb]

50. And what percentage of the population of these slave states

was actually slaves?

[Sgent]

61. See above link

but often quite large. Virginia's slave population alone was 10% the size of the entire country's free population -- hence the 3/5 compromise.

Virginia, both Carolina's, and Maryland's representation were all reduced by the creation of the Senate. Those four states accounted for 600,000 of the 690,000 slaves in the country.

[Demsrule86]

32. It was designed to get small states to sign on the dotted line.

[FBaggins]

49. No it wasn't

The largest state (by far) was Virginia. New York and Maryland were slave states at the time and were also on the large end of the list. North Carolina was 3rd/4th largest. The smallest states included Rhode Island, Delaware, Vermont and Maine.

The 3/5ths rule was obviously about slavery... but a population-based weighting in the Senate would have benefited the slave states at the time.

[guillaumeb]

51. And what percent of Virginians were slaves? eom

[FBaggins]

53. Lol...

Not enough to suddenly make it a small state.

Or even move it to second place.

Though why you would state that senate representation rules were to defend slavery and then imply that you don't think the slaves should be counted as people is beyond me.

[guillaumeb]

57. An interesting reading on your part.

Especially your rather creative interpretation in the last sentence.

The slave states had a high slave population. And the slave owners did not consider them to be human, thus these large states denied all rights to a significant percentage of the population.

[FBaggins]

58. Feel free to suggest a different reading

the slave owners did not consider them to be human, thus these large states denied all rights to a significant percentage of the population.

I'm familiar with the concept of slavery... thanks.

Why would the proportion of slaves make the relative population of VA (as the largest state) less relevant for this conversation?

The point was off-base by any metric (since VA would be the largest in either case)... but why did you think it was relevant?

[guillaumeb]

72. #71

And I was also addressing your implication.

[jberryhill]

64. Here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_Census

Viriginia, Maryland, North Carolina and South Carolina had vastly more slaves than free white male adults.

Look at these numbers:

Pennsylvania:

Free white male adults: 110,788

Slaves: 3,737

Virginia:

Free white male adults: 110,936

Slaves: 292,627

[guillaumeb]

71. Thank you.

And the fact that the Southern states treated their slaves as less than human, with no rights, shows that a fixed number of Senators worked to the advantage of the slave states.

And the 3/5th compromise was designed to allow the Southern states to count the slaves as inhabitants for the purpose of determining the number of Representatives.

[jberryhill]

73. And not only did they ensure there would not be a majority for overturning slavery

But they also took the issue off the table for the then-foreseeable future, so that the numbers could be gamed, in exchange for allowing a fairly hefty import tax.


1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

They could all count, and they certainly knew what was at stake.

[guillaumeb]

74. The economic system demanded nearly free labor.

And the North obviously benefitted as well because the raw goods produced in the South would cost less for Northern manufacturers.

But to admit that the Constitution was written to account for, and accommodate, slavery is difficult for many white Americans.

[jberryhill]

75. "Nearly free labor"

However, if Wal-Mart had to house, feed and clothe its workers, instead of paying them a non-livable minimum wage; it would probably cost them more.

From that perspective, paying a non-living wage and externalizing that cost onto social programs is a better deal for the employer than slavery, if you think about it.

[guillaumeb]

76. Of course.

But speaking of externalizing costs, any farmer who did not use slave labor could not compete against slaveowners.

And the cost of maintaining an army and police force to control against the possibility of rebellion was also externalized onto the non-slave owning population.

[jberryhill]

65. Enough to make a HUGE difference, though

From the 1790 Census:

Pennsylvania:

Free white male adults: 110,788

Slaves: 3,737

Virginia:

Free white male adults: 110,936

Slaves: 292,627

------------

Counting free white males, PA and VA are pretty much equal. But VA has more than TWICE as many slaves as free white males.

[FBaggins]

66. Not really.

At least... not for purposes of this thread. I don't see why it's relevant to parse age/sex/color/etc. for this conversation. VA wouldn't be a "small state" regardless of who you're willing to count as a person. It would still be the largest (granted... not by much)

The original claim was that the non-proportional nature of the US Senate was intended to "give the slave states more power". In my experience, this misperception is usually based on ignorance of history. The proponent (not necessarily in this case) usually believes that republicans are more likely to be racists and small population states are far more likely to be red... and that it must has always been like that. So they assume that the small states must have been the slave states.

The reality, of course, is that many of the free states were among the smallest and many of the slave states were among the largest. Especially if you consider that New York was a slave state at the time, the slave states would have been much better off with proportional representation in the Senate.

[moose65]

85. Maine didn't become a state till 1820

And Vermont wasn’t one of the original states ( it was 14th) but I see your point.

[hlthe2b]

3. It was a last minute compromise, decided by ONE VOTE. There was no great consensus as suggested.

The issue of representation, however, threatened to destroy the seven-week-old convention. Delegates from the large states believed that because their states contributed proportionally more to the nation’s financial and defensive resources, they should enjoy proportionally greater representation in the Senate as well as in the House. Small-state delegates demanded, with comparable intensity, that all states be equally represented in both houses. When Sherman proposed the compromise, Benjamin Franklin agreed that each state should have an equal vote in the Senate in all matters—except those involving money.

Over the Fourth of July holiday, delegates worked out a compromise plan that sidetracked Franklin’s proposal. On July 16, the convention adopted the Great Compromise by a heart-stopping margin of one vote. As the 1987 celebrants duly noted, without that vote, there would likely have been no Constitution.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/A_Great_Compromise.htm

Please don't make it sound like our founding fathers were in agreement on this. Quite the contrary!

[MineralMan]

4. Yes. One vote. And yet, that was the system that was adopted, as I said.

I did not claim that there was a consensus, just that that was the system that was created.

[hlthe2b]

6. The spin has been for many years that this was our Founding Father's plan. That is not true.

It truly is deceptive NOT to stress that in any account as to WHY we have the Senate constructed as we do.

[MineralMan]

8. But it was the plan that was adopted.

That is the Constitution. Was there consensus? No, there was not. There was a majority - a one-vote majority.

You keep trying to claim that I said there was a consensus. I did not. I said that was how that body created the Constitution, which is still in force, with the 17th Amendment changing how Senators are chosen, added later to fine-tune the system by having the voters in each state decide on their own Senators.

We have the Constitution. That is the founder's plan for our system of government. It was created by majority vote.

That's not spin. That's history.

[hlthe2b]

9. When you fail to accurately attribute the vote to a 1-vote margin compromise it is deceptive

It was NOT consensus. Thus those questioning it, just as with the EC are fully justified in doing so--even if changing it is improbable.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to render the EC moot has now been passed by 14 states that convey 189 electoral votes. States passing sufficient to convey eighty-one more votes will achieve that, rending a constitutional amendment totally unnecessary. So, there MAY be a means to affect change sans a full-scale constitutional convention on other matters as well. It merely takes good minds not discounting the possibility and working together.

[MineralMan]

11. I'm done.

See you in some other thread.

[pangaia]

19. I do not agree at all that MM was being deceptive. I have NEVER known him to be deceptive.

[hlthe2b]

24. There is a major effort to spin the decision on construct of the Senate with the implied

intent to stop any effort to change it, however difficult it might be to do so. That is the truth. Just as it has been with the Electoral College. Yet the interstate compact referenced in my previous post shows just how feasible that may actually be. Not all who do so with respect to the Senate discussion are doing so intentionally. However, to imply it was set in stone by a wide consensus of our revered founding fathers is just that--deceptive.

[Demsrule86]

38. It might as well be set in stone. It is not difficult to change but impossible.

[Demsrule86]

34. And that is so dumb It makes my teeth ache... only blue states have signed on.

So now Republicans can win by winning the electoral college or by winning the popular vote. While Democrats still lose if they win the popular vote only and must win in the electoral college always.

[hlthe2b]

43. The EC compact only comes into play when enough states have passed to equal 270--

thus rendering the EC in effect null and void. I'm guessing you realize that, right? (there has been a lot of confusion on that point). So nothing changes with the states that have passed it, until then.

Several red states are considering it, so there is a slim chance one or more might sign on.

[FBaggins]

62. Does it go away if a state drops out and cuts the total under 270?

[hlthe2b]

63. I believe so... but alternately the other states can enact legislation to nullify it.

[elleng]

5. because it has NUMEROUS representatives, in the HOUSE.

[zipplewrath]

7. It's the fatal flaw

When this was created, there were 13 states. It was never intended that a small minority would be able to achieve majority control. It was merely to give the minority an over sized influence. However, the current situation is that roughly 30% of the population can control the Senate. By 2040 it is projected that 70% of the population will live in just 15 states, meaning that 30% of the population will control 70% of the senate. This was never intended, but created by the formation of new states that albeit large, were and still are sparsely populated.

It is the fatal flaw in the constitution and it basically cannot be changed. The constitution prevents this, and only this, feature from being changed by the amendment process. Short of every single state agreeing to change it, it will never change. A convention could conceivably change it, but the convention would be dominated by these low population states.

We are doomed. A country cannot long last being ruled by an extreme minority.

[MineralMan]

10. I didn't claim is was the best choice.

I'm simply describing how it was created.

Changing that basic structure will be a very, very difficult job, if it is even possible, which I doubt.

Is it a flaw in our system of government? Probably, but almost any system has flaws.

[zipplewrath]

36. FATAL flaw

A flat tire is a flaw. The car exploding is a fatal flaw.

[Sgent]

27. We can't change the makeup of the Senate

but we could probably make it less powerful (more like the hose of lords).

[dumbcat]

42. How could we make it less powerful?

Given that any amendment reducing its powers would require a 2/3 vote of the Senate.

I'd really like to hear your ideas.

[Sgent]

59. Your right

I was thinking more as a theoretical issue, it could be done under the standard amendment process vs to change the senate to a population based body would require each individual state to consent -- so each of 50 state legislatures.

[dumbcat]

67. Where are you seeing this process?

... to change the senate to a population based body would require each individual state to consent -- so each of 50 state legislatures.

What process other than an amendment (which does not require all 50 states to consent) could change the Senate to a population based body?

[moose65]

33. That's true, but....

There ARE some small blue states, like Vermont, Rhode Island, Hawaii, etc. It would still be possible for Democrats to control the Senate, even with the population concentrated like that.

[zipplewrath]

35. Not just Blue vs Red

As long as this nation has been around there has been some variation of "rural vs urban". Originally it was more "merchant vs. agrarian" But you can't have a country in which a minority view (what ever that view is) is in control of governing.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. It wasn't based on some great principle of government; it was a compromise.

Hamilton hated the idea.

In The Federalist No. 22, he says:

Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Delaware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense. It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third.

Madison freely acknowledged that it was a compromise, just a political bargain to keep the small states from torpedoing the Constitutional Convention.

(It would be pointless) 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.” A common government, with powers equal to its objects, is called for by the voice, and still more loudly by the political situation, of America. A government founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed government and a government still more objectionable. Under this alternative, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.

Hamilton and Madison had no choice but to give in to the demands of the small states in order to keep the Convention from collapsing and some worse deal being made.

[MineralMan]

17. Yes. A compromise. Everything involving an entire nation

is going to be a compromise. So, a one-person majority voted to accept that compromise. Without it, we probably wouldn't have had a working Constitution at that time.

Of course, the nation has changed enormously since then, and we are stuck with an 18th century design for a government from a different time period and a different world, really.

Our system is supposed to be represented by people of intelligence and good will. Sadly, that is often not the case. See Mitch McConnell. The system is not working properly right now. The solution is to change the makeup of Congress. That is what we must do, since the structure is established and cannot be easily changed.

The 2020 election will be a test. A hugely important test. Can we shift the balance and correct the current imbalance as voters, or can we not? I suggest that we do that. I suggest that we put all of our efforts into doing that. In 2020, nothing else matters as much, and nothing could matter more.

We have the system we have, and changing that is not in the cards at the moment. So, we need to recognize that and work to shift things in a better direction. Will we do that? I don't know. I'm just one voter with precious little influence. I hope we will make that shift happen.

[jberryhill]

41. I'm surprised you didn't catch the "one person, one vote" thing in there

[A HERETIC I AM]

54. Counselor, wasn't it also a nod toward the "House of Lords" concept in England?

The House of Representatives being the House of Commons and the Senate being the House of Lords?

Would you agree that they were using the British Parliament as a model?

Or am I remembering what I read years ago incorrectly?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

56. Most likely, since that's the only model they would have been familiar with.

But the House of Lords doesn't have as much power as the Senate (although maybe they did in those days). Most modern parliamentary governments are now unicameral.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

13. Were they perhaps also modeling it after England

which had the House of Lords and the House of Commons? A somewhat different system, but perhaps partly in mind when they went with the House and Senate?

[MineralMan]

20. Sure. The founders were working with political theories of the time.

There's a definite relationship between the British Parliament and our Congress. After all, that was the system they were changing to better suit the new nation. So, yes, it was partly modeled on that. No question.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. Sort of, except that the House of Lords has less power than the Senate.

Legislation comes from Commons, and Lords can only review or delay bills by sending them back to Commons for compromise. Except in special circumstances they can't actually prevent bills from passing. The concept of two separate legislative bodies almost certainly came from the British system, though, since that's what they knew.

[NewJeffCT]

14. I think an alternate solution

would be to increase the number of representatives in the House?

But, right now, it's working out it's working out kind of how the Founders planned

California - 2 Senators, but 53 Representatives. 39.5 million population

The bottom 21 states = 42 senators, but only 51 House members for 37.3 million in population

yes, a lot of smaller states are red states, but in that bottom 21 you also have Rhode Island, Vermont, Connecticut, Hawaii, Delaware, New Hampshire and Maine. Not to mention Iowa and New Mexico.

[MineralMan]

21. That is certainly a possibility, but would not change the

Senate's structure. In reality, some other sort of system would probably suit or 21st century nation better than an 18th century one. That's a discussion for another time, though. Right now, we need to shift the balance of power within the current system. We have an election next year in which we could possibly do that. I suggest we give it our best shot. Then, perhaps we could begin considering more basic changes.

We cannot change the current system before then. That is impossible. We have to deal with what we have, and understanding what we have is the first step, I think.

[zipplewrath]

40. Senate controls ALOT

It's how the courts are being packed by the GOP right now. They approve treaties. They approve appointments to the Cabinet. And as has been shown, they can block EVERYTHING. It also influences presidential elections as well. You can have the "upper chamber" controlled by 30% of the population. That was NEVER the intent.

[jalan48]

16. And that's why gerrymandering is such a big problem. It has damaged the one person one vote idea.

[MineralMan]

25. And that is really a State matter, at least from a constitutional perspective.

The states control their elections, not the federal government. So, every state sets its own district boundaries, with some oversight now, by the federal government.

We may have outgrown our system. Perhaps we should take another look at it, but 2020 gives us a chance to rebalance things, if we'll take that chance.

[guillaumeb]

18. It was designed to give the slave owning states more power

than their populations would have otherwise allowed.

And it was done so the more populous North could not make slavery illegal. The Senate would act as protection for the slave states.

[moose65]

31. That's not really true

As was noted above, when the Constitution was written there were 13 states. The New England states were a lot smaller than the Southern states at that time. Virginia was the LARGEST state. In 1789, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware were still slave states. In fact, 8 out of the 13 were.

[jberryhill]

39. Are you counting slaves as whole persons in those comparative figures?

[moose65]

86. I see your point

I was counting slaves and women, the two groups that couldn’t vote! Makes me wonder - were Native Americans counted in the first few censuses (censi?!?!)

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

70. That was the purpose of the so-called Three-Fifths Compromise,

which was reached among state delegates during the convention. How slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population would influence the number of seats that the state would have in the House. The compromise solution was to count only three out of every five slaves, and the result was to give the southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes. But it had nothing to do with the compromise relating to the number of Senators.

[maxsolomon]

22. Burn the Senate to the Ground.

Not only is it undemocratic and barely "representational", it is filled with some one the worst humans in the country. Elderly, tottering grandees, blathering know-nothings whose only purpose is to stall progress, and whose only qualification is wealth or connections.

McConnell has been there for THIRTY GODDAMN YEARS. How old was that racist hypocrite Strom Thurmond when he left, 99? He served from 1954 to 2002!

My niece was a Senate Page, and every time we spoke, I asked her to kick a Republican in the nuts. She never did, though...

[MineralMan]

30. What's your plan to do that?

It's easy to say, of course. But, how would that happen?

I know. Do you? It involves all those people who don't bother to vote. Remember them?

[maxsolomon]

69. You know about those people because I reminded you of them yesterday.

Remember that?

There is no practical solution to the Senate at this time, and probably not for the remainder of my lifetime (current estimate: 30 years). That's why my "solution" was absurd. Kicking individual Senators in the nuts is just as likely as a fix to the imbalance.

Unless... California, et al split into multiple states, each with 2 Senators. At 40 million people, 80x the population of Wyoming, that's 160 Senators.

The State of Marin! The State of Berkeley! The State of La Jolla! Works for me.

[brooklynite]

26. Also worth pointing out that Senators used to be appointed by State Government...

...rather than voters.

[MineralMan]

28. Yes. That was changed by the 17th Amendment.

A bit of a tweak in the system. We do have methods for changing the Constitution. Amending it is quite difficult, but can be done. We need to take great care not to change it, though, in ways that could make the situation worse. That's why it's so hard to do.

The immediate issue, though, is just an election away. That is where we must look right now. That is what we should be focused on, I think.

[gordianot]

44. A Constitutional Convention would be a disaster.

Not that there is not a disaster now; it is safer to have the disaster you know than the potential perils just waiting to happen.

Elite authoritarian governing bodies such as the Senate and Electoral College were not in hindsight a good idea.

[MineralMan]

46. That is almost certainly true.

[rurallib]

48. from my understanding, if you have a constitutional convention

there is no limit to what can be addressed.
Yes it would be a disaster.

[marlakay]

45. If those guys that made up the original

Rules were alive today they would have changed a bunch of things. They would have thought it crazy that we would be unable to fix it because it gave one party more control.

Just CA alone has more people living in it than rest of US and wasn’t even a state when they made the rules.

They thought if it got too bad 2/3rds of Congress would fix it not realizing how gerrymandering would cause it almost impossible to get 2/3 ever to change it.

[MineralMan]

47. You're probably right.

It ain't the 18th Century any more.

[treestar]

68. The founders had state legislators vote for them, too

The Constitution has been amended regarding that. Over time, I might expect something like a proportional Senate, though we may never see it. But the general trend it to trust the voters. The EC's functions are gone. Even if the Founders were right, they did not expect it to be an add-up of state popular votes with the electors all voting for the winner of the state's popular vote. They expected us to elect the Electors as the ones we trusted to choose the POTUS. So the way it is functioning now was never even meant to be, but the change was an attempt to make it better reflect the voters' wishes, at least state by state.

[PAMod]

77. Good discussion

Another problem, of course is that the size of the House of Representatives is frozen at 435 - clearly not the intention of the founders.

When the populated states grow, their power in the House does not keep pace.

That the Senate favors the less populated states was baked in the cake. That the House does not favor the most populated states to the degree that was planned is a flaw that should be fixed...

[doc03]

78. Because the US is not a democracy.

[MineralMan]

83. As I said in the original post.

[Quemado]

79. One possible solution to this dilemma - secession.

The 15 most populous states should secede and form a new country with a constitution modeled on the current one, with the following four exceptions:

1. No Electoral College - politicians are elected by popular vote only.

2. No Senate. There would be one legislative body - a House of Representatives.

3. Representation in the House based on population, not dirt.

4. An unequivocal right to vote for everyone, 18 or older.

I don't see any other way to fix the problem coming in 2040 that will result in a minority-ruled United States.

You can rule out amending the current Constitution. There are too many low population states that will oppose giving up any of their power. A Constitutional Convention will open the door to changing anything in the document, including the loss of rights in the 1st thru 10th Amendments,

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

80. So how would that be done, exactly,

since those states are widely spread out geographically (New York? California?), and none of the states are all conservative or all liberal. Also, the fifteen most populous states are these:

1 California
2 Texas
3 Florida
4 New York
5 Pennsylvania
6 Illinois
7 Ohio
8 Georgia
9 North Carolina
10 Michigan
11 New Jersey
12 Virginia
13 Washington
14 Arizona
15 Massachusetts

Note that not all of them are blue states.

The idea of secession pops up periodically and it's always dumb.

[Quemado]

82. If there is no solution to this dilemma, the U.S. will become a minority-ruled country

in 2040. A country with 35 states representing 30% of the country's population. That's a formula for electing Trump-like presidents that would never win the popular vote. I don't think the 70% in the 15 states will like that.

[Lurker Deluxe]

84. well ... ijs

Aren't California, New York, and Florida all supposed to be under water by then?

That might change things ... a little.

[Honeycombe8]

87. You are correct, Mineral Man. I get it.

It's not just the population count that matters. It's the territory, the state entity, the land...it has a right to equal representation.

Popular vote matters a lot. But so does a state, even one without a large population.