> But they weren't just "ancient" quirks.

How else would you describe the way populations grew more places labeled X and not places labeled Y over the course of 250 years?

> They were commitments made to your fellow Americans in smaller states. Commitments that were required to allow the formation of the country at all;

Is this just a complaint about phrasing, or are you claiming some commitment would be broken?

My proposal has no effect on any commitments made to states, neither in letter nor in spirit. It doesn't change the rules for Senate nor House representation, and it doesn't infringe on the sovereignty of any state. If anything is restores state-sovereignty in one narrow scenario, a scenario no signatory ever believed was an intended feature.

Namely, the betrayal which happens when when humans (residing within the borders of a high-population state) are partially disenfranchised, and coalition of low-pop states vows: "Even though it's entirely within your own borders, we will veto any attempts to fix it. No other states except us can be small, we are pulling up the ladder. In order for us to keep an advantage your residents must suffer."

▲

fc417fc802 an hour ago | parent [-]

Representation in the house is supposed to be proportional to population. Unfortunately that's no longer the case and we should fix that.

Yammering on about unequal representation in the senate as though it's some great injustice is either partisan or ignorant. The senate was never supposed to provide representation relative to population and attempting to game the system by subdividing certain states but not others is no better than attempting to pack the supreme court or any other blatantly disingenuous behavior.

	▲	Terr_ 40 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> attempting to game the system by subdividing certain states but not others Oh, so you're against sneaky "some but not others" schemes? Great! Me too! So why are you going the opposite direction? You're supporting a status-quo where a partisan Senate bloc can selectively say: "I like it for Florida, but not for New-York", or vice-versa. You're opposing something that'd fix the thing-you-hate by giving both of those states equal capability. > The senate was never supposed to provide representation relative to population So what? That doesn't change. It's non-changing was a core requirement in the proposal, and I've pointed it out several times now. That aspect literally can't change via amendment. Why do you keep suggesting it'd change anyway somehow?