Women and Politics

I think it’s safe to say that things have changed since 1787. Our country is much more diverse and our priorities are a lot different.

Sure, 223 years ago, a big concern was how each state would be represented in the national legislature. The Great/Connecticut Compromise decided that each state would get two Senators, and the House members would be determined by each states’ population.

But, as Annie Lowrey points out in the Washington Post, this seems to make less sense today:

“Half of the population of the nation lives in 10 states, which have 20 senators. The other half lives in 40 states that have 80 senators,” says the official Senate historian, Donald Ritchie. Small states and states whose representatives might tip the balance on a key vote make out like bandits, as their senators demand outsize appropriations in return for their support.”

Lowrey notes, “The Great Compromise was intended to make sure the big states didn’t trample the little guys.”

But who are the “little guys” today? I would argue they’re not states, but the under-and non-represented portions of our population: Women, low-income families, minorities, the young, the old, the middle-aged, etc.

Lowrey poses a radical question: What if senators represented people by income or race, not by state?

Get outta town. Our representative democracy actually representing our population accurately? Would that really be so crazy?

I’m sure many would think so…probably the demographic of folks who have been in power since 1787 and couldn’t possibly conceive of changing the system to be fair.

Which makes me really sad, because the Senate that Lowrey describes sounds so wonderful:

“Imagine a chamber in which senators were elected by different income brackets — with two senators representing the poorest 2 percent of the electorate, two senators representing the richest 2 percent and so on.

Or how about if senators represented particular demographic groups, based on gender and race? Black women, Hispanic women and Hispanic men would have six each; black men five; and Asian women and men two each.”

And the part that especially made my pro-choice feminist self jump for joy?

“Women voters would control a steady and permanent majority — making, say, discriminatory health-care measures such as the Stupak Amendment and the horrible dearth of child-care options for working mothers seem untenable.”

Sigh. It would be so beautiful. But while it makes perfect sense to me, I know others would dismiss, laugh at, and otherwise criticize the idea to no end.

What do you think? Should our government reflect the makeup of our population?