Or did you perhaps have some gerrymandering-esque idea to limit these 'benefits' to liberal metropolitan areas?
What? It sounds like you're crowing over some kind of "gotcha", but what is it?
If we both agree on the same principle, what's the problem? Namely, that citizens being disproportionately (un)represented in their "democratic" government is typically bad, and especially when it's just from ancient quirks of boundary line development.
On reflection, I suppose there's another explanation: Some people go through life with no real principles, flip-flopping based on whatever is temporarily advantageous to "their team". Is that it? Are you projecting your lifestyle onto me, and feeling the thrill of "winning" at being badder?
________
In either case, more legislative details are in this older comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45690336
In fact, they were intended to be _actively_ reviewed and updated every 2-3 decades. But we don't and haven't done that, for and around the EC in particular, since at least the Civil War.
And when people talk about it, they're immediately assumed to have ill intent. In fact, they too, by talking about it, are also following the covenants of the same people who made those "commitments".
How else would you describe the way populations grew more places labeled X and not places labeled Y over the course of 250 years?
> They were commitments made to your fellow Americans in smaller states. Commitments that were required to allow the formation of the country at all;
Is this just a complaint about phrasing, or are you claiming some commitment would be broken?
My proposal has no effect on any commitments made to states, neither in letter nor in spirit. It doesn't change the rules for Senate nor House representation, and it doesn't infringe on the sovereignty of any state. If anything is restores state-sovereignty in one narrow scenario, a scenario no signatory ever believed was an intended feature.
Namely, the betrayal which happens when when humans (residing within the borders of a high-population state) are partially disenfranchised, and coalition of low-pop states vows: "Even though it's entirely within your own borders, we will veto any attempts to fix it. No other states except us can be small, we are pulling up the ladder. In order for us to keep an advantage your residents must suffer."
The most direct fault leading to that is the massive expansion of the Commerce Clause and the following elevation of every major issue to the federal level. The founders never expected this because the federal government wasn’t even supposed to be able to dictate most intra-state things.
The idea of the Senate makes sense, at least to me. States give up some sovereignty to be in the union, the Senate gives each state equal representation because they’ve each given up the same level of self-governance. The House reflects people equally as members of the union, and the Senate reflects states equally as members of the union.
Without the Senate, small states are giving up way more sovereignty than larger ones. Eg Rhode Island would have practically no sovereignty, they’d just be captives of Texas, California, etc. They don’t have enough people to swing a vote, so no federal party is going to campaign there or listen to what they want.
Making more states dilutes power in the Senate, and I don’t see a clean way to do that. If we allow arbitrary divisions of states, we invoke a race to the bottom where states can just fragment into a million tiny states and chaos ensues. If we enforce a lower population limit then the Senate just reflects the populace and becomes a pointless copy of the House.
Yammering on about unequal representation in the senate as though it's some great injustice is either partisan or ignorant. The senate was never supposed to provide representation relative to population and attempting to game the system by subdividing certain states but not others is no better than attempting to pack the supreme court or any other blatantly disingenuous behavior.
