Calblog

The Senate And "Over-Representation"

Will and some others over at Crescat find themselves in a discussion of Senate "Over-Representation" of the voters or the the states which are smaller in the Senate. In a sense, individuals are over or under-represented as a result of the Senate, but it's important to remember that pre-17th amendment the Senate really did represent States not the voters of the states (well at least not directly). In any event, Over-Representation does seem to include a judgmental claim if only because I think over-representation seems to connotate more represenation than is fair, this may not always be the case, but I think that's what most would think (it is unfair that X's vote is worth more than mine), but as a Californian it's important to remember that everything is fluid. Sure California is (as defined by Will and Andrew) under-represented in the Senate, but time ago, California was well over-represented. The Senate can represent a kind of insurance policy that no states influence become too weak. After all, some of the largest states of Yester-year are no longer the large powerhouses they use to be. In any event there's no reason that a strict equal per capita suffrage metric should always be used, it isn't in many bodies (Olympics, UN, Shareholders, etc.). In some cases it is the best in others, it isn't. But as per Will's metric, he is correct, smaller states are over-represented. Of course one could stir trouble and make the claim that "Small states are under-represented in the house." Which, would be correct. Using the metric of equal suffrage by State.