SENATOR SHUFFLE

     A letter to the editor in a recent issue of the New York Times wondered aloud about adding to our number of Congressmen in the House, raising the number from the current 435 to an unwieldly 3,100 in an effort to bring down the number of people each Congressman represents from the current approximation of 1 for about every 708,000 people (though that number varies by state as each state is guaranteed one Congressman regardless of population) to 1 for every 100,000 which the writer felt better approximated what the Constitution had originally set out (1 for every 30,000 - which, if used today, would result in the United States having 10,267 members in the House of Representatives while still only having 100 Senators).

     Now while I can accept the idea of increasing the total number of Congressmen somewhat. Maybe 650 - get it? Cuz that's 13 times the total number of states? And there were thirteen states when the Constitution was ratified? Moving along...

      I am actually more interested in the Senators. Each state gets two regardless of population but their districts are apportioned by population (within their respective states) like the House of Representatives. But why not apportion them differently?

     The recent debate over gun ownership rights and regulations thereof sparked by the Newtown, Connecticut elementary school massacre brought about two major mindsets of those in this country. No, not liberal and conservative, but rather that of rural and urban. In a survey showing gun ownership throughout the country, the suburbs fell almost precisely in the middle of the two regions. However, for the purposes of what I'm about to suggest, I will be lumping the suburbs in with the rural.

     When looking at the debate surrounding this issue, one finds that it is the rural regions which are very pro-gun and the urban regions which are very anti-gun. It suggests to me that the two regions have very different priorities and not that one particular priority or the other is necessarily wrong. Just that, perhaps these perspectives, one that of rural and the other of urban ought to be what is represented by our Senators, rather than some gross approximation of half the state's population.
     Sure, more people live in the cities than in the suburbs and small towns but the apportionment of the House is already determined solely by a state's population so why not apportion the Senate on the basis of mentality, specifically the rural/urban divide?

     It would seem a sensible idea to me.

     Hell, and if we're gonna argue for increasing the size of the House of Representatives, why not do the same for the Senate and give three Senators to each state? That way, one can exist for each of the three mindsets of this nation: the rural, suburban, and urban.