������̳

Is it fair that only two senators represent all states, regardless of population?

I would not evaluate the design of the Senate in terms of “fairness.” The goal was to provide equal representation to the states. The Senate does indeed treat all states equally. Based on the intentions, yes, the Senate is “fair” in that no state receives special treatment.

The real question is if it is harmfully undemocratic. In a democracy, all citizens are supposed to be afforded equal opportunities to engage with the political system. The Senate obstructs that. Its format provides more political power to residents of small states than to big states. If the citizens of small states want different things the citizens of big states, then the popular will is being thwarted, which is politically harmful.

What are the consequences of gerrymandering?

It is important to remember that gerrymandering has happened for a very long time. Although some see it as a recent phenomenon responsible for increasing polarization, the Senate, whose members are independent of gerrymandering efforts, is as polarized as the House.

That said, gerrymandering is not without costs, especially when partisan state legislatures draw the lines. The most successful tactics “pack” supporters of one party into a small number of districts and “crack” blocks elsewhere to make sure they are just enough that they will always be close but not enough that they will win. The result is that the party that drew the lines can receive only 40 to 45 percent of the vote but retain 55 to 60 percent of the offices. These representatives, knowing that they should be able to retain political power no matter what, are then able to legislate against the preferences of the people.

Should we reform how votes are apportioned in Congress?

That is easier said than done, but I am inclined to say yes. In the House, multi-member districts (where possible) may be a good way to go. We may also want to consider expanding the membership of the House so that congressmen from California and Texas are representing smaller districts than they are now.

The Senate is trickier by design. Statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico might help alleviate some problems, but the root cause is more structural. California’s two senators represent about 68 times as many people as Wyoming’s do, and Texas’s represent about 50 times as many as Wyoming’s. We can’t realistically break Texas into 50 pieces, but some changes may be worth debating.

Should a non-partisan federal commission manage the voting process or should it be left to the states?

There are advantages and disadvantages to both. Leaving elections to the states creates significant safeguards. We don’t really have a “national election”; we have more than 50 separate elections, with individual counties able to exercise significant discretion. This means that it is really hard to “hack” or “rig” our elections because doing so means wildly different things from state to state, county to county.

That said, heterogeneity makes it easier for smaller-scale instances of intentional or accidental voter suppression. Counties can have poorly designed ballots, or states can restrict the number of polling places. A centralized, federal commission could mitigate such problems. Although, given our partisan politics, it would undoubtedly become a target.

Between the two, I think centralizing our elections makes more sense. But it is important to remember that this may be coming with an increased risk of susceptibility to external threats. The current decentralized system results in too many instances of voter suppression, however, and so that trade-off is worth it.

This article originally appeared in WalletHub and has been edited for length.