The 62 senators on the top represent about one-fourth of the people in the United States.
So do the 6 on the bottom.
Overrepresentation in the Senate is among the reasons why the smallest states (and their local governments) received more federal aid per capita in 2010.
Montana is, like, one of the top ten most over-represented states in America and most of us supposedly “Hate Government.”
Perhaps I don’t understand the point the New York Times is trying to make, so someone please enlighten me.
The whole point to the Senate is so each state has an equal say when weighing the impact of legislation (voting). No state, regardless of population, has more of a voice than any other state. Every state has two senators. North Dakota matters just as much as Texas.
This is also the point of the House of Representatives. Population should matter when defining legislature. This is why North Dakota only has 1 congressman, while Texas has 36.
How does North Dakota have more of an Advantage than Texas? Since two senators from ND and two senators from TX have the same voting power in the Senate, where’s the advantage? That sounds like equality to me. The advantage actually lies with TX - at least temporarily - when you consider the House, and you must consider the House.
The Senate cannot pass a law on its own. Once the Senate (or House) has done its thing and voted on an introduced bill, it is passed the the House (or Senate) for another round of debate, amendment, and voting. Then a conference of both houses irons out the differences in amendments, and the bill gets passed to the Executive branch (the President). The signing or veto of the bill is a whole different animal, so we’ll leave it at that.
Here’s where things fall apart for me when looking at the post. There’s mention of per-capita federal aid grants per state. The problem here is that the House determines taxation and appropriation, not the Senate. While I’m sure federal aid is appropriated as separate pooled expenditures (e.g. federal aid for highways and federal aid for education are separate pools) and not actually appropriated per state, I don’t think senators can just give money to their states as they see fit.
Have I missed the point, or am I wrong in the way federal aid is allocated? Please educate me. Whether right or wrong, the title and the data presented are wrong on so many levels, and I think the New York Times should know better.Source: