[madhadron]

No, there's a senate to get the small states in the late 18th century to ratify the constitution. There's still a senate because various groups added states without enough population to pass the bar of statehood in order to get extra votes without having to actually have democratic support.

[msandford]

>> That's why there's a Senate in the US. So that the rural folks get some kind of voice in these matters when they don't have enough bulk population to matter in the House.

> No, there's a senate to get the small states in the late 18th century to ratify the constitution.

There's nothing really incompatible about these statements. The reason you needed a Senate to get the little states in on the whole deal was precisely the "populous states swamp out the less populous states" problem. I'm pretty sure the rural vs urban divide was already happening even then even if it was smaller in magnitude.

I would love to know more about the statehood population minimum you've referred to. Did some googling and didn't find much so a link would be greatly appreciated.

[madhadron]

Look up the admission of the Dakotas. There was a minimum number of people a state had to have to be admitted, but that was ignored in order to pack the Senate.