What would be...

[jfish26]

...the substantive [1] reasons each state should not have three senators? With the six-year election cycles being staggered by two years, wouldn't it make sense to have each state electing one senator every two years? Seems like this would drive engagement.

[1] "Because the Constitution." Got it. I'm wondering why, substantively, this was not done.

[DCHawk1]

As I understand it, the decision to make the number of Senators two per state was purely pragmatic.

One was universally recognized as insufficient (illness, death, etc.), but Madison et al. didn't want the number to be too large. Given the nature and function of the Senate (i.e. non-proportional representation and longer terms to better learn the purposes and effects of legislation), they worried that a Senate with too many members would overwhelm the House, and be too drastically anti-Democratic.

So they decided on 2 per, with staggered 6 years terms (as opposed to Hamilton's desire to have lifetime appointments).

[jfish26]

As I understand it, the decision to make the number of Senators two per state was purely pragmatic.

One was universally recognized as insufficient (illness, death, etc.), but Madison et al. didn't want the number to be too large. Given the nature and function of the Senate (i.e. non-proportional representation and longer terms to better learn the purposes and effects of legislation), they worried that a Senate with too many members would overwhelm the House, and be too drastically anti-Democratic.

So they decided on 2 per, with staggered 6 years terms (as opposed to Hamilton's desire to have lifetime appointments).

Right. And I'd guess it was not at all conceived then that there would be 50 states.

So, shoot holes in the idea. What's bad about the result?

[DCHawk1]

I'm not sure there are any real strong arguments against it, substantively.

I suppose one could make the case that there is some benefit in permitting the states to have some periods in which they are not directly affected by the vicissitudes of national politics. Since the Senate represents the states rather than the people and given the ever-increasing nationalization of politics, it would make some sense to permit each state the opportunity -- a "dead" election cycle -- to asses state needs, removed from national political circumstances, which may, at times, be contrary the states' interests but which rarely persist from cycle to cycle.

[jfish26]

I'm not sure there are any real strong arguments against it, substantively.

I suppose one could make the case that there is some benefit in permitting the states to have some periods in which they are not directly affected by the vicissitudes of national politics. Since the Senate represents the states rather than the people and given the ever-increasing nationalization of politics, it would make some sense to permit each state the opportunity -- a "dead" election cycle -- to asses state needs, removed from national political circumstances, which may, at times, be contrary the states' interests but which rarely persist from cycle to cycle.

That's logical.

I think an indirect counter is that turning over one seat every two years, instead of two every six, makes a state's representation in the Senate better attuned to the issues of the moment (which, I think, you're saying is potentially specifically not desirable).

[DCHawk1]

Yes. That is what I am saying is specifically not desirable -- at least in a constitutional vacuum.

In real life, I don't think voters distinguish between House members and Senators enough that one could make that case stick -- at least to an audience of normal, moderately politically engaged voters.

[zsn]

As a practical matter the number is mostly irrelevant since the States have become more politically entrenched. What difference does it make if you have two Senators of the same party from each State vs three from the same party from each State. The balance of power will essentially be the same - there are what 5-6 States where the two Senators are from different parties? That number is likely to reduce after this year (AL, AZ, CO and ME will likely fall off that list).

What WILL make a substantive difference, IMO, will be changing SCOTUS from being lifetime appointment to a 9-year term where a new Justice is appointed and confirmed in each of the first three years of a Presidential term. Granted that one President may try to pack the Court (six out of nine) but there will be four different Senate compositions which will act as a foil. The next President can undo any damage within the next two years. Not saying it would be perfect but it would certainly be better than the current one installed by #MoscowMitch

[Geezer]

26 states contain 18% of the population. Theoretically 18% of the people could control the Senate.

[zsn]

26 states contain 18% of the population. Theoretically 18% of the people could control the Senate.

May not be the 18% but I read recently that currently the Senate is controlled by those representing about 26% of the population(or somewhere in that vicinity - that number sticks in my mind) .