A Fair U.S. Senate Structure

The Senate being made up of 2 senators per state for only 50 of the 52 “states” is unfair from the start. How could it possibly be fair that a state with just over 1 million residents gets the same representation as a state of just over 39 million? I’m using simple state population numbers rather than registered voter population by state. Regardless, I think it would be a much more fair and representative system either by simple population or registered voter population. Also, every state and territory should receive representation. So, 52 rather than 50.

We should use the mean state population rounded down to nearest million as the count needed for one senator while rounding up the state’s population to the nearest million. If a state is below the average, that state receives only one senator. So every state always gets at least one representative. The numbers should be tallied every 3 years, and appropriate action taken to accommodate the results on the same cycle. It would take a mass movement in population to significantly affect the number of senators assigned to a given state in a 3 year cycle. However, if such a thing happens, said state will gain or lose a seat accordingly. Not easy considering that the average population by state is currently around 6 million.

To shed some light on how unfair things currently are, there are only 19 states that would receive more than one senator. Why is it we currently allow states with less than 1 million citizens to be represented by two senators? Wyoming, isn’t even above 600k let alone 6 million. How is it fair or reasonable that Wyoming gets the same representation as California with over 39 million residents? There are 33 states that should only have one senator, 13 that should get two, 2 with 3, 2 with 4, and only 2 with 5 plus (California & Texas.)

This method does not result in 100 senators, nor does it guarantee an even number to divide between parties, but I do not think that matters. Senators are suppose to represent the people, which they currently have a hard time doing. We can simply divide the number of senators in half and use the accuracy of the fraction in counting senate votes, with the VP still having the tie breaking vote. By above chart, there would only be need of 84 senators for 52 states, saving the United States the annual income of 16 senators. Also, savings aside, it would be a much more representative system than we currently have. The damn Filibuster could be left in place and it would still be a far more fair and representative system.

This system would better represent the people above the states, which would definitely be an improvement considering the current system neither represents the states or the people, even though many argue it represents the states (some, but not all of them.) I already hear people saying, that’s what the House is for, but the House is dysfunctional and in need of reform also. Gerrymandering and Citizens United need to be abolished, they are simply regressive levers of power.