Replies

Some small-state Senators would be sure to resist this, as if they didn't gain a Rep from the scheme it would dilute the electoral vote advantage their state enjoys, and if they did gain a Rep from the scheme it would materially increase the Senators' pool of potential opponents.

However, the Senate as a whole might find an expansion of the House quite gratifying. Since, to be politically paletable, an expansion of the House would almost certainly be accompanied by a pro-rata reduction of individual House office budgets, the relative institutional power of an individual Senator, already monumental compared to that of any non-leadership House member, would increase even more.

Some small-state Senators would be sure to resist this, as if they didn't gain a Rep from the scheme it would dilute the electoral vote advantage their state enjoys, - - - "

However, the Senate as a whole might find an expansion of the House quite gratifying. Since, - - - the relative institutional power of an individual Senator, already monumental compared to that of any non-leadership House member, would increase even more.

Yes, the Senate is a problem in more than a couple of ways. If Senators really represented their own state, as originally intended, instead of seeing themselves as "presidents in training", things would be far less screwed up (and campaign finance reform would probably be a non-issue).