On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:



Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport
yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of
North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and
ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of
population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states
each to have two U.S. Senators.

So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one
man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but
not the Senate.

North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a
million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is
represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000
persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont,
Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a
population of 40 million.

Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness
matters, states with less than a million people should only have one
U.S. Senator.


The answer to both you and your wife is because the Constitution calls
for two US Senators per state. It says nothing about population of
those states in terms of number of Senators.

Think of it this way: The country is called, "The United *States* of
America". Each state is equal in rights regardless of population or
how backward you and other elitist would like to believe.