What would the United States Senate look like if Senate seats were allocated in proportion to states' areas, rather than the equal allocation we have today? The map above shows the result, using the Adams method of allocation.
In the Adams method, every state is guaranteed at least one Senate seat, even though it may constitute considerably less than 1% of the total area of the United States. Consequently, larger states like Alaska lose a bit of representation; Alaska constitutes more than 16% of the area of the US, but only gets 12 Senate seats.
Eight states see their Senate representation increase to more than 2 seats; 21 states stay the same; and 21 states lose representation, going down to one senator. Since a Constitutional amendment can be blocked by 13 states, the map above is unlikely to become reality.
What purpose would be served by such an allocation? Recall that in American history, some states have been formed out of other states. For example: Delaware was part of Pennsylvania during the colonial period; Maine was a colony of Massachusetts; Vermont was part of New York; West Virginia seceded from Virginia; etc. More to the point, Californians recently considered a proposal to partition the state into 6 new states.
Any time a state divides, the combined representation of the new states in the House of Representatives will remain about the same, because it is proportional to population. However, the new states would get two senators each, increasing the proportion of their combined representation in the Senate. Thus the Constitution provides an incentive for states to split. Texas has 254 counties, more than any other state. If all the counties chose to become independent states, they would together control the Senate.
By choosing to allocate senators by area, rather than equally, we remove the constitutional incentive of states to split (although they may still wish to split for other reasons).
In the Adams method, every state is guaranteed at least one Senate seat, even though it may constitute considerably less than 1% of the total area of the United States. Consequently, larger states like Alaska lose a bit of representation; Alaska constitutes more than 16% of the area of the US, but only gets 12 Senate seats.
Eight states see their Senate representation increase to more than 2 seats; 21 states stay the same; and 21 states lose representation, going down to one senator. Since a Constitutional amendment can be blocked by 13 states, the map above is unlikely to become reality.
What purpose would be served by such an allocation? Recall that in American history, some states have been formed out of other states. For example: Delaware was part of Pennsylvania during the colonial period; Maine was a colony of Massachusetts; Vermont was part of New York; West Virginia seceded from Virginia; etc. More to the point, Californians recently considered a proposal to partition the state into 6 new states.
Any time a state divides, the combined representation of the new states in the House of Representatives will remain about the same, because it is proportional to population. However, the new states would get two senators each, increasing the proportion of their combined representation in the Senate. Thus the Constitution provides an incentive for states to split. Texas has 254 counties, more than any other state. If all the counties chose to become independent states, they would together control the Senate.
By choosing to allocate senators by area, rather than equally, we remove the constitutional incentive of states to split (although they may still wish to split for other reasons).
RSS Feed