“Legislators represent people, not trees or acres,” Chief Justice Warren wrote for the court in 1964, rejecting the argument that state senators, like federal ones, could represent geographic areas with varying populations. “Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.” Applying that principle to the Senate would be very hard. Even an ordinary constitutional amendment would not do the trick, as the framers of the Constitution went out of their way to require states to agree before their power is diminished. Article V of the Constitution sets out the procedure for amendments and requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or action by two-thirds of state legislatures to get things started. But the article makes an exception for the Senate. “No state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate,” the article concludes.? NY Times
Aw Shucks! Guess what coasties? This is still a federal republic. The Great Compromise that created the senate was built to lure the smaller states into the union of the thirteen. It worked, and now you big Democratic Party dominated lands of wonderfulness are stuck with it. You know very well that no state will agree to its own diminution. A coalition of the giants? Let's see that in action. IMO such a grouping would last until the interests of the states, as states, began to conflict.
The outcome of the CW/WBS was the big opportunity to fiddle with this system. Nothing happened. Why would it? The bog states benefited from the war.
1- California, New York, etc could secede from the Union. No?
2- OK - The big states could petition to be allowed to divide themselves into two or more states. California could become; Movielandia, Cowlandia and Redwoodia or maybe (Sasquatchia). New York could become; Bloombergia, Mohawkia and Albania. Oops, that one is taken.
This might not work out all that well for the fantasy island big city people. The county by county electoral maps are revealing. pl