America’s Two-fer

Why do Wyoming, with a single Congressman and a population of about 544,270 (0.17% of the entire U.S. population), and California, with 53 Representatives in the House and a population of approximately 36,961,664 (11.95%), each have two U.S. Senators? One person, one vote? A state with almost 68 times the population has the same clout in the United States Senate? It may be even more tilted than that! With the cost of campaigning in the less populous states a tiny fraction of that of the heavyweights, what’s to stop special interests from creating PACs and other campaign financing structures, turned loose after the January Supreme Court Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission decision, to tenure their champions (and seniority in Congress brings juicy committee appointments!) on the cheap? With a six year elected term for Senators (a hundred strong), that’s a pretty cost-efficient use of campaign contributions.

While the House of Representatives (435 Representatives based on population) has its own affliction – members with two-year terms are always running for office and raising money (wonder if that leads to any abuses?!) – at least power is based primarily on the number of people in each constituency (roughly one Representative for every 600,000 to 800,000 people, with a floor of one per state). How in the world did we ever create such an imbalance in half of our legislative chambers (the Senate), claiming as we do to be the most representative democracy on earth?

Back in 1787, when our Founders considered how to structure Constitution and the electoral process, there was a huge battle between those favoring states’ rights and a confederacy and those who believed that all people should be equally represented. It wasn’t pretty, and it pitted smaller states, like New Jersey, who really wanted to have the same rights practiced under the earlier Articles of Confederation and promulgated equal rights among the states (the William Patterson’s New Jersey Plan), while James Madison’s Virginia plan fought for equal representation based on population.

Senate.gov tells us what happened next: “As early as 1776, Connecticut’s Roger Sherman had suggested that Congress represent the people as well as the states. During the 1787 convention, Sherman proposed that House representation be based on the population, while in the Senate, the states would be equally represented. Benjamin Franklin agreed that each state should have an equal vote in the Senate except in matters concerning money…On July 16, delegates narrowly adopted the mixed representation plan giving states equal votes in the Senate within a federal system of government.” The result is often called the “Great Compromise” or even the “Connecticut Compromise,” and this along with the archaic electoral college (the intervening body of electors that actually vote for the President of t he United States) became the law of the law ever since.

It’s funny that the talk of Constitution amendment these days is about requiring those born in the U.S., and thus into citizenship, be the children of citizens to effect citizenship in the future. Immigration and citizenship are most relevant, whether or not such an amendment passes, but it never ceases to amaze me that Americans seem to be just fine with tiny, under-populated states have the same voice in half of the legislative process as states almost 68 times their size. There were population discrepancies back in 1787 but nowhere near modern levels. I wonder what the Founding fathers would have done with modern census data. And would California be better off being cut in two, three or even more pieces?

I’m Peter Dekom, and common sense seems simply to have evaporated these days.