Short answer: Small states would have been happier with their representation in the House, because by design the House assigns seats to states based on population, while the Senate provides equal representation per state. This tension between equal state value (in the Senate) and proportional district representation (in the House) is what most discussions point to when considering which group would prefer the current system. Details and reasoning
- Founders' design: The constitutional structure uses two chambers with different principles. The House bases representation on population (larger states gain more seats over time), while the Senate grants each state equal representation (two senators, regardless of population). The result is that large states can gain influence more quickly in the House, but small states retain influence in the Senate. This dual system aimed to balance populous and less populous states.
- Implications for happiness (theoretical view):
- Small states: In the House, their influence is limited by population-based allocation. In contrast, in the Senate they have equal power (two seats per state), which helps safeguard their interests against domination by larger states. If happiness is tied to protecting state-level parity and minority (state-size) influence, small states might be seen as happier because their Senate representation stays strong and buffers them in national policymaking.
* Large states: In the House, larger populations translate to more representatives and more influence, which aligns with their interests in a population-weighted chamber. However, in the Senate their influence is capped at two seats, which can be seen as a constraint on their power relative to their population during some national votes. Depending on the weighting of power between the two chambers, large states may or may not be as satisfied with the overall system as small states.
- Alternate perspectives and cautions:
- Historical debates: The Great Compromise (Connecticut Compromise) established this bicameral structure to satisfy both small and large states, suggesting the design intentionally created a balance that neither group would find perfectly "happy" in every issue, but rather ensured cooperation and periodic bargaining across the states.
* Modern misrepresentation discussions: Analyses of how votes translate into seats show that misalignment between population share and House seats happens, with some states receiving slightly more or less representation relative to their vote share. This is often cited in debates over proportionality and fairness in the House, not specifically about happiness, but it highlights that neither side fully controls outcomes across all elections.
If you want, I can tailor this explanation to a specific era or scenario (e.g., during the framers’ debates, or contemporary politics) and show how the distribution of seats and votes would affect each group under different hypothetical outcomes.
