The Great Compromise of 1787 settled the debate on representation resulting in the government agreeing to have the Senate equally represented by two officials per state and the House of Representatives was characterized based on the population of each state. There were two sides to the debate: The Virginia Plan and The New Jersey Plan. Each Plan only benefitted one side or the other because both sides had a different portrayal of equal power. One wanted equal delineation for all, while the other wanted apportionment. The biggest obstacle between the two sides was attempting to balance the power of representation between the small and large states. Had one side’s plan been enacted over the other we would have a great disparity in governmental …show more content…
One purpose called for the formation of a national judiciary, “Resolved, That a national judiciary be established to consist of one or more Supreme Tribunals and of inferior tribunals to be chosen by the National Legislature to hold their office during good behavior…” (Putnan 466). The national judiciary would allow for several checks of power, such as a term limit for officials. The national judiciary was one proposition that they had in common with the Virginia Plan Other proposals involved levies on imports and rules on naturalization. One of the most important objects of the New Jersey plan was to retain the equal representation of the states in Congress. Without the retention of equal representation, there would not be equal rights for the smaller states. In addition, the larger states would have a considerable advantage because they would have dominate power in the Legislative Branch. Even though equal representation would be beneficial for the small states it would be unfair for states that were twice the size of the small states which in turn would create an imbalance of power. Ultimately, both sides agreed to compromise and came to a two-part agreement that leveled the playing field for power. Since one side wanted the power to be divided equally and the other to be established by state population, they decided to combine both concepts to reach a compromise that gave them both what they wanted. The official agreement was that the House of Representatives would be allotted seats depending on the size of the state’s population and in the Senate, all states would have an equal number of seats (Farrand). This workable compromise allowed them to settle their differences and come up with a plan for equal representation and for population-based representation. Had they not reached this compromise one side would have an