Have you ever wondered why states like California or Texas have a significantly larger number of representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives compared to states like Wyoming or Vermont? The answer lies in a pivotal moment in American history: the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the agreement known as the Great Compromise. This compromise addressed a fundamental question: how should states be represented in the newly formed government?
During the sweltering summer in Philadelphia, delegates from the thirteen original states gathered to forge a new framework for governance. A central debate quickly emerged regarding representation in the national legislature, now known as Congress. The crux of the issue was whether representation should be based on a state’s population or if each state should have equal representation, regardless of size. This disagreement threatened to derail the entire process of creating a unified nation.
Alt text: Illustration depicting delegates engaged in intense debate during the Constitutional Convention, highlighting the central issue of state representation.
The Virginia Plan: Advocating for Proportional Representation
James Madison, a key figure at the convention, along with Edmund Randolph, proposed the Virginia Plan. This plan advocated for a bicameral legislature, meaning a Congress composed of two chambers or houses. Crucially, the Virginia Plan proposed that representation in both houses should be based on the population of each state. Larger states, like Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, were strong proponents of this idea.
Their reasoning was straightforward: they argued that states with larger populations contributed more significantly to the nation’s economy and defense. Therefore, they believed it was only fair that these states should have a greater voice in the national government, reflecting their larger stake in the nation. Madison himself argued that the principle of equal representation, which existed under the Articles of Confederation, was no longer suitable for a truly national government. He emphasized that a national government should represent the people directly, and thus representation should be proportional to population.
The New Jersey Plan: Championing Equal State Representation
However, smaller states vehemently opposed the Virginia Plan. They feared that proportional representation would lead to their voices being drowned out by the larger states. William Paterson of New Jersey presented the New Jersey Plan as an alternative. This plan countered the Virginia Plan by proposing a unicameral legislature, a single-house Congress, where each state would have equal representation, regardless of its population.
Alt text: Portrait of William Paterson, a leading figure from New Jersey at the Constitutional Convention, known for advocating for equal representation for small states.
The smaller states argued that they were sovereign entities and deserved equal footing in the national government. They believed that equal representation was essential to protect their interests and prevent larger states from dominating the political landscape. Paterson declared that a “confederacy supposes sovereignty in the members composing it & sovereignty supposes equality,” underscoring their commitment to equal state power.
The Great Compromise: Balancing Population and State Equality
The debate raged on, threatening to collapse the entire convention. To break the deadlock, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut proposed what became known as the Great Compromise, also called the Connecticut Compromise. This ingenious plan offered a bicameral legislature, maintaining the structure proposed in the Virginia Plan, but with a crucial modification to address the concerns of both large and small states.
Alt text: Image of Roger Sherman, a delegate from Connecticut and instrumental in devising the Great Compromise at the Constitutional Convention.
The Great Compromise stipulated that representation in the House of Representatives would be based on proportional representation, satisfying the larger states. This meant that states with larger populations would indeed have more representatives in the House. Conversely, representation in the Senate would be based on equal representation, with each state receiving two senators, regardless of its population, thus appeasing the smaller states. Benjamin Franklin further contributed to the compromise by suggesting that bills related to revenue and spending should originate in the House of Representatives.
This compromise was narrowly adopted, but it proved to be the linchpin that held the Constitutional Convention together. It successfully balanced the competing interests of large and small states, paving the way for the creation of the United States Constitution.
Why This System Endures Today
The Great Compromise remains a cornerstone of the American political system. It explains why, to this day, states have varying numbers of representatives in the House, directly reflecting their population size, while each state maintains equal power in the Senate with two senators. This bicameral structure, born out of intense debate and compromise, continues to shape the balance of power in the U.S. Congress and ensures that both population and state equality are represented in the legislative branch of the government.
In conclusion, the reason some states have more representatives than others is a direct result of the Great Compromise forged during the Constitutional Convention. This compromise was essential for the formation of the United States, resolving a critical disagreement about representation and establishing a system that balances the principles of population-based representation and state equality, a system that continues to define American governance.
