Letters to the Editor – Weekly Issue of July 18, 2011
Readers write in response to Timothy Rieger's June 20 commentary, "Senate's lopsided power of big states, small states."
Is US Senate lopsided?
Regarding Timothy Rieger's June 20 commentary, "Senate's lopsided power of big states, small states": If the election of senators were still as the Founders intended, I dare say there would be no unfunded mandates coming from Washington, nor legislation demeaning the power of the states. If one views the Senate as representing the states and not the people, which is the purpose of the House of Representatives, there is in fact, equal representation in the Senate.
Mr. Rieger is correct in noting that states with larger populations have proportionately smaller representation in the Senate, but his assertion that this imbalance directly correlates to "vastly greater political power" represents a misunderstanding of the Constitution.
The purpose of the Constitu tion is not to promote democracy. Strictly adhered to, democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where the rights of the minority are subjugated to the will of the majority. The United States is a republic, and it was designed that way to protect every individual's freedoms in what seemed to the Framers the most equitable way possible. If the Senate had the same proportionate representation as the House of Representatives, then smaller states would have hardly any representation at all.