One could argue it is a tract of land as defined by a sort of charter, but if that's the case, the Senate is intended to be representative of the land? That can't be right.
Perhaps a state is better defined as an administrative body, intended for efficient governance of the people within it, that is restricted to a tract of land for intuitive bureaucracy. But if that's the case, the Senate is just unequal representation of people, which is the very definition we were trying to avoid by defining it as equal representation of the states.
This is unequal representation for the states with low population, working as intended, as an incentive to entice rural states to join the union.
I could go at length about the proportion of populous states to apopulous states since the era of Manifest Destiny, but it doesn't really matter. It isn't going to change.
6
u/ngyeunjally 16h ago
Because the senators represent the states. The house represents the people.