One of the more interesting aspects of U.S. history was getting to the bottom of what exactly the whole “no taxation without representation” cry was about. It was something we learned in our college history class that we didn’t necessarily learn in school. Part of that is just the nature of how everything is broken down. At least that is true in Texas. The first half of U.S. history is taught in 8th grade and 8th graders don’t necessarily understand the concept of virtual representation. The concept of the rotten borough was one of the more interesting ones and it seemed far-fetched then, but maybe now not so much.

It’s kind of an important distinction to make. If nothing else, it helps explain the frustration from the colonists in what would be the United States as well as later in Canada, India, and other colonies around the globe. They were all English subjects and yet had no real say in their government. Many would wonder what this has to do with anything, but it becomes pretty clear when you look at the U.S. Senate and how representation is broken down. The framers of the constitution in their “infinite wisdom” decided each state should be equal.

I seriously doubt they foresaw the kind of population disparity we have currently. Even if they did, they specifically wanted the needs of the states to be represented. They didn’t have well developed parties back then and even if they thought the federalists and anti-federalists were parties, they didn’t represent the same constituencies as today. The combination of these two factors cannot be understated and certainly is stark when set against the backdrop of the first revolution.

The top five states in terms of population contain around 38 percent of the overall population in the country. I suspect the GOP has been fighting so hard in Florida and Texas for voter suppression laws because they know what will happen if those states turn blue. Most will focus their attention on the obvious effects on the electoral college. Yet, the impact on the Senate is what might be most concerning. A 50-50 Senate would only become a 54-46 Senate assuming no other changes. Yet, the five most populous states would suddenly become dominated by the Democratic party.

The bottom 20 states would account for approximately 15 percent of the overall population and would account for the majority of Republican representation in the Senate. So, while voter suppression is about the White House and Congressional control, it also about the threat of revolution itself. Sooner or later, people are going to figure out that the Senate doesn’t reflect the will of the people. It is broken down by land and not people. We could hope that somewhere along the line a majority of people would recognize that one party represents people and one party represents land.  That may even be the case now nationwide, but enough pockets in enough states have managed to subvert the will of the majority. That can only happen so long before major changes are demanded.