The Great Compromise: A Comparative Analysis

The supporters of proportional representation (James Madison, James Wilson, and Rufus King) argued that the number of members in both houses should be based on the number of people that they would represent. Since government both acted and represented the people, they believe that the government should give equal voting power to an equal number of people. Madison argues that the states should not be represented as states in national gov. (each representative should serve a district and connect the people of that district to the national government). Others argued for equal representation of the states (as in Articles of Confederation). These delegates believe that U.S. was confederation of separate states, and the national government derived

from and represented the state, not people as a whole. (The position of many delegates reflected the size of their state. The supporters of the Virginia Plan were delegates from more populous states, while delegates from smaller states wanted equal representation because they feared that unless they had an equal voice, larger states would dominate.)
The New Jersey Plan differed from the Virginia Plan because in the New Jersey plan, states retained power, unicameral legislature was maintained, and the apportionment of representatives differed (the New Jersey plan support the idea that each state would have one vote).
The Great Compromise adopted a previous proposal suggested by Connecticut delegates Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth.

The Great Compromise contained these ideas: (1) The House of Representatives should be elected by the people on the basis of proportional representation (Article I, Section 2); (2) There should be equal representation of each state in the Senate, and each state legislature should select two senators (Article I, Section 3); and (3) The House of Representation should have the power to develop all bills for taxation and gov. spending (Article I, Section 7), and Senate should be limited to accepting/rejecting these bills (this provision later was changed to permit the Senate to amend tax bills developed in the House and to develop appropriations bills). Obviously each side gained a little and lost a little. The Great Compromise addresses the problem of representation by stating that the House of Representatives would use proportional representation and the senate would use equal representation. The Great Compromise did not address the discussion of how representatives would be appointed in the House of Reps, and specifically, whether enslaved persons should be counted when apportioning representative to the

states.
The Three-Fifths Compromise and the census helped delegates resolve issues of representation because it settled the debate of how representatives would be appointed in the House of Representatives, and specifically, whether enslaved persons should be counted when apportioning representative to the states. The compromise stated that there would be a census for the entire population (every ten years). For purposes of apportioning, the state’s population equalled the entire population of free persons (including indentured servant) plus three fifths of “all other persons” (slaves). Based on this population, representatives would be appointed to the House.
The history of the United States might have been different if the original thirteen states had been guaranteed a perpetual majority of the representation in the Congress because the Congress would hardly do anything for the common good, and it would usually represent for the benefit of all the powerful states and their governors. I also think that there might be conflict (like a rebellion) against the perpetual majority that could cause equal representation of the states in Congress.
The Senate was designed specifically to balance out the pure majority rule of the House of Representatives since the Senate has equal representation and the House of Representative has proportional representation.