Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:13 am
Whenever someone brings this up to me I always ask them if they also agree that the Senate should be based on population instead of each state getting the same number of senators. That usually leads to a discussion of the background on this including the Great Compromise, States Rights, etc. And as much as I'd love to get rid of a Senator (or two) from Vermont, most people agree with me that it makes sense to give small states equal representation as large states in at least some ways so they can effectively advocate for the unique interests of their local population.
As others have said, this has zero chance of getting a sufficient majority in either house of Congress, much less both. And even if it did somehow make it through Congress it would never be ratified. The reason is the same in all cases. Elected officials from smaller states would have to obviously vote against the interests of the people they represent.
And elected officials from smaller states would effectively have to vote against
their personal interests...which for some of our esteemed senators would be far more compelling than going against the interests of the people and their states.