Excellent article! I was taught in civics class that the House representation was based on population, but the Senate representation was equal for each state so that small states would not be under the thumb of large states because they had so little power in the House. At the time the Constitution was written that seemed like a reason…
Excellent article! I was taught in civics class that the House representation was based on population, but the Senate representation was equal for each state so that small states would not be under the thumb of large states because they had so little power in the House. At the time the Constitution was written that seemed like a reasonable compromise when forming a federal government from a collection of independent states. I suspect many rural states today would say that it is still important, but clearly the Senate is primarily functioning as a tool for the wealthy to hold onto power which I see as a much bigger problem than the rural/urban divide.
That's the story they would like to tell. Back then, rural states = lots of plantations = slavery. So, "rural state interests" was code for "protecting the landed gentry"
Excellent article! I was taught in civics class that the House representation was based on population, but the Senate representation was equal for each state so that small states would not be under the thumb of large states because they had so little power in the House. At the time the Constitution was written that seemed like a reasonable compromise when forming a federal government from a collection of independent states. I suspect many rural states today would say that it is still important, but clearly the Senate is primarily functioning as a tool for the wealthy to hold onto power which I see as a much bigger problem than the rural/urban divide.
That's the story they would like to tell. Back then, rural states = lots of plantations = slavery. So, "rural state interests" was code for "protecting the landed gentry"