What were the opposing points of view that made the Great Compromise necessary?
The Great Compromise was necessary because the states were divided into two opposing viewpoints regarding the structure of the legislative branch in the proposed United States Constitution.
The first opposing viewpoint was known as the Virginia Plan, which was favored by the larger states. The Virginia Plan proposed a bicameral legislature based on population, where the number of representatives in both houses of Congress would be proportional to the population of each state. This system heavily favored the larger states as they would have more representatives and thus more influence over legislation.
The second opposing viewpoint was known as the New Jersey Plan, which was favored by the smaller states. The New Jersey Plan proposed a unicameral legislature, where every state would have an equal number of representatives, regardless of population. This system protected the interests of smaller states, as they would have the same level of representation as larger states.
These two opposing viewpoints created a deadlock and threatened to derail the entire Constitutional Convention. The smaller states feared that the larger states would dominate the legislature and ignore their interests, while the larger states argued that the smaller states would have an unfair advantage with equal representation. As a result, the Great Compromise was necessary to find a middle ground and establish a compromise that satisfied both sides. The compromise created a bicameral legislature, with the House of Representatives based on population (favoring the larger states) and the Senate with equal representation for each state (favoring the smaller states). This compromise helped ensure the ratification of the Constitution and the formation of the United States government.
The Great Compromise, also known as the Connecticut Compromise, was necessary to resolve the differing viewpoints on representation in the United States Congress. The opposing points of view were primarily driven by the size and population differences among the states.
1. The Virginia Plan: Proposed by larger states, the plan called for representation in Congress to be based on the population of each state. This concept, known as proportional representation, would have given more power to states with larger populations. Smaller states were concerned that their voices would be overshadowed by the larger states under this plan.
2. The New Jersey Plan: Proposed by smaller states, the plan called for equal representation in Congress, regardless of state population. This concept, known as equal representation, aimed to protect the influence of smaller states and prevent domination by larger states. Larger states were concerned that this approach would not accurately reflect the population differences and would give unfair advantages to smaller states.
The opposing viewpoints between proportional representation and equal representation created a deadlock during the Constitutional Convention. The Great Compromise, proposed by Roger Sherman of Connecticut, combined elements of both plans to create a bicameral (two-house) legislature that satisfied both sides:
1. The House of Representatives: This chamber would be based on proportional representation, with the number of seats determined by each state's population.
2. The Senate: This chamber would have equal representation, with each state having two senators, regardless of population.
By adopting this compromised solution, the Great Compromise successfully addressed the concerns of both larger and smaller states and resulted in a balanced representation system in the United States Congress.
The Great Compromise was a crucial agreement reached during the 1787 Constitutional Convention in the United States. It was necessary to resolve the conflict between two opposing points of view on how representation in the new Congress should be determined.
The opposing points of view can be summarized as follows:
1. The Virginia Plan: Proposed by the larger states, this plan advocated for a bicameral (two-house) legislature with representation in both houses based on the population of each state. This means that the more populous states would have more representatives and therefore more influence in the federal government. Supporters of this plan believed that representation should be proportional to each state's population, as it would reflect the relative size and importance of each state.
2. The New Jersey Plan: Proposed by the smaller states, this plan called for a unicameral (one-house) legislature with equal representation for all states, regardless of their population size. Supporters of this plan argued that every state, regardless of size, should have an equal voice in the federal government. They believed that giving more power to the larger states would lead to unfair dominance and neglect of the smaller states.
As you can see, the disagreement centered around whether representation should be based on population or be equal for all states. Without a compromise, there was a risk of the larger states overpowering the smaller states or the smaller states feeling marginalized and underrepresented.
To resolve this impasse, the Great Compromise, proposed by Roger Sherman, outlined a compromise that combined elements of both the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan. It established a bicameral legislature with the House of Representatives, where representation is based on population, and the Senate, where each state has an equal number of representatives. This compromise struck a balance between the interests of the larger and smaller states, ensuring fair representation and the preservation of state sovereignty.
In summary, the opposing points of view that made the Great Compromise necessary were the Virginia Plan's call for representation based on population versus the New Jersey Plan's demand for equal representation for all states. The Great Compromise ultimately blended these two approaches, resulting in the bicameral legislature we have today.