If you had been a part of the Constitutional Convention, would you have supported the Virginia Plan or the New Jersey Plan? Share several specific facts or details to support your opinion.



This is a hard choice to make because it would change our country’s government system. I think it would depend on where I lived during the decisions was being made. I think that I would have supported the New Jersey plan, because it gives equal representation, in America, everything is about being equal, especially about the equality of rights. I would have chosen the New Jersey plan because it more fair and would make things easier in government because there wouldn’t be as many representatives.

ES-SOTH



I think this would be a very hard decision. I think this because I think a major part of my decision would depend on where I lived. What I mean by saying “depending where I live”, I say that because if I lived in a big state, I would probably support the Virginia Plan because I would believe that as a bigger state that we should have certain benefits. However, if I was a smaller state, I would definitely support the New Jersey Plan, because I don’t think it’s fair to give all the power to the big states, because they should have some of the same benefits as the bigger states.

BM-SOTH



That would be a very hard decision for me to make. If I had lived in a State with a bigger population, I MIGHT have voted for the Virginia Plan. I would probably vote for the New Jersey plan, though. I would vote for it because I have a strong feeling for equality. I would want each state to have an equal amount of votes, mainly because nobody deserves to be canceled out from anything, including the voting of the President of the United States of America.

JS-SOTH



I would have supported the New Jersey plan because this plan seems more fair. Also this would speed up the law-making process because it is easer to pass a law through 100 people, rather than 535 people. By speeding up the law-making process you can amend and add laws that are required to survive a state of emergency and make important decision faster. This would make it much easier to protect the country in a time of war.

KR-SOTH



If I had been part of the Constitutional Convention I would have supported the New Jersey plan. I would have supported this plan because it provides for a more even and divided power between all the states. The Virginia plan was in a sense the large states being greedy. Even if I was living in the larger state I would still like even power division. Since the two plans came into being, the Great Compromise was made.

MR-SOTH



If I had been a part of the constitutional convention, it would be a hard decision on what plan to support. In the end I think that I would support the Virginia Plan. I would make this decision because it seems more fair to the bigger states. I think a bigger state should have more representation because they have more people to make happy, so they should have more votes. The bigger the population, the more people, and the more majority in the population. I think that with the New Jersey Plan, it is only fair to the smaller states because then the bigger states have to agree and that isn't always easy. This is why I would go with the Virginia Plan.

PS-SOTH



I think this would be a very difficult decision to make. If I lived in a smaller state, I would definitely support the New Jersey Plan, so we could all have equal representation. If I lived in a bigger state I would probably choose the Virginia Plan. That would give my state more power and a better say in our government. There would be a small chance that I would support the New Jersey Plan, though. This is because every state deserves a say in our country’s government. Still, I would most likely choose the Virginia Plan if I lived in a bigger state.

AJ-SOTH



I would be in favor of the New Jersey Plan. This is because I think that even though there were larger and smaller states, in the Articles of Confederation, the states were united. I believe when they say united they mean that no one state had to much power and they were all equal. Just like how we are all equal in God's eyes, no matter our social status. Also, the whole point of becoming free was so that they could get away from a monarchy where one person had to much power. One of our country's main goals was to set up a government where no one person or group had to much power. This is why I would support the New Jersey Plan if I was attending the Constitutional Convention.

RS-SOTH



I would have to side with the New Jersey plan. The reason is because if it was based on population, than smaller places whould not be treated equally. For New Jersey would only be noted as a simple none included and not able to say what they want, for example: should Georgia have more Reps than Rode Island does, Rode Island's thought doesn’t realy count.

SL-SOTH



If I were to choose either the New Jersey Plan or the Virginia Plan, I would say that I would have to go with the New Jersey Plan. I am in favor of equal representation. That’s what one of the arguments that the colonists made during British rule; that they weren’t getting equal representation in Parliament. Equal representation also makes certain that everyone’s opinion is heard and recognized as valuable.

The Virginia Plan stands out to me as being selfish. Their ideas seemed to benefit only large states because of wanting more representation for the largely populated states. It seems to me that the larger states are beginning to think that they are better than the smaller states because they are larger and that makes them think that they can have more privileges. But truthfully, no state is better than another because of their population.

The New Jersey Plan supports everyone. It is saying that everyone should have equal representation because no one is better than anyone else. It is saying that everyone should have the right to be heard and their opinion heard. If the Constitution had supported only the Virginia Plan, I have a feeling that the smaller states opinions and votes would be overshadowed and overpowered by those thoughts and opinions of those bigger states who feel that they are better than the little states.

I really can’t see how the Virginia Plan would be fair to everyone in the country and best for our government. Equal representation is one of the main things that our forefathers were fighting for when we were under the British. If we gain our independence and then turn around and do the exact same thing that the British did to us to the smaller states, then what’s the point of gaining our independence? It seems pointless because it seems like equal representation isn’t at all important to us.

SB-SOTH



I believe that I would favor the Virginia Plan, which I feel is more sensible. It makes sense to me to give the larger states more representatives than the smaller states with a smaller population. Because the larger (and more populated) states have more people, they should have a majority amount of representatives. This makes the average amount of representatives even to each other. In the New Jersey Plan, which supports the smaller and less populated states, there is an even amount of representatives per states, whether the state is California or Rhode Island, which have a huge difference in size and population. In the Virginia Plan, smaller states and less populated states may only have 1 representative, but in the Virginia Plan, they only have 1 more. The Virginia Plan seems fair to all states, in my opinion, because it is based on the amount of people.

BH-SOTH



I think that my decision would mostly depend on what state I lived in. The New Jersey plan to me seems more like a fair plan though. I think that the Virginia plan seems like more of a way just to gain power. I don’t think that is right to do that because the colonist came to America so they would not have to be ruled under a monarchy. I think that if they went with the Virginia Plan it might end up that a couple of states would rule everyone.

AS-SOTH



My decision would depend on where I lived. If I live in a small state I would definetly support the New Jersey Plan and if I lived in a large state i would support the Virginia Plan. If I had to choose between the two plans and i had no choice to say neither I would pick the New Jersey Plan because everything would be equal and the larger states wouldn't have so much power over the little states.

LR-SOTH



If I had been apart of the Constitutional Convention, whether I chose the Virginia Plan or the New Jersey Plan would have been largely based on whether I lived in a larger state or a smaller state. I can see both points of view, as each side wanted what was best for their size of state. In the end though, I think I would have voted for the New Jersey Plan, as it did not give one state any more power than the other. Though this plan did not represent all the states equally or directly, it ensured that not one state became to powerful and that the smaller states did have a say in the government. This aspect I believe would have been very important at the time, and would have helped the states grow more as a country in terms of what we believe.

EK-SOTH



Personally, I would support the New Jersey Plan, because then I would know that every state would have the same representatives, and that would equal the representation of each state. I know that if I was in a bigger state that I would want to have the Virginia plan, but if I moved to a smaller state, than I would want to change the number of representatives to the same number for each state. I think that it would be better to have the same number of representatives for each state because then there would be fewer smaller states fighting for more representation, and even though the bigger states would be mad about not having more representatives, everything would be equal. It is good, though, that we have the House and the Senate supporting both plans.

JD-SOTH



Like many others said it’s a hard choice but I think I would have supported the New Jersey plan. I would support this plan because it doesn’t divide power by the population but by equal power amongst each state. This plan would give power to every state not giving to much power or too little.

EY-SOTH



I would have gone with the Virginia plan because Colorado is a big state and I would represent the bigger state idea. Also I liked the idea of that it should go population.

MD-SOTH



If I was at the Constitutional Convention, I would have chosen the Virginia Plan. The Virginia plan, to me, seemed more appropriate for the nation because it had two houses. The House of Representatives was there so it could keep more control over the people. If the people in the nation started to act up, the House of Representatives could settle the problem without any uproar from the nation.

The Senate was the other house that was in the Virginia Plan. This house would be there to control the States. If the states had any disagreements of property or their own state laws, the senate would step in. Unlike the New Jersey Plan, this plan would have an advantage because if one house was helping a certain group, there would still be another house there to help.

The only thing I disagree with in the Virginia Plan is that the number of lawmakers depended on the population. In the New Jersey Plan the states would have an equal number of votes in congress. But besides that, the Virginia plan is well suited for the nation.

AM-OSL



If I was at the Constitutional Convention I would have picked the Virginia Plan because it was smarter way to govern this nation. I would vote for it because it seemed fair to the bigger states because it has more electives. It also is a lot easier to manage because it is two houses not three. It also depends on how much power they would have and I think the New Jersey Plan had to much of it. The Virginia Plan also had the houses split up and represent either the states or the people. To me that made a lot more sense then one house representing all things at once. That's why the Virginia Plan would have been my vote which made more sense then the New Jersey Plan.

JS-OSL



If I had to chose between the Virginia and New Jersey Plan, I believe I would have to say the New Jersey plan. This is because our country was founded on equality, and if you gave representation only to the states who had a bigger population, that would not be fair to the states like Rhode Island who did not have that big of a population just because of its small size. I also think the one branch of government might have caused less turmoil between the states, because the branch would have represented the people stronger than 2 split branches. Also, when we vote there have been times the vote has been a tie, and the representatives are the ones who decide who our leader will be, which defeats the purpose of the saying " government of the people, by the people, for the people."

AV-OSL



If I had been at the Constitutional Convention, I would have voted for the New Jersey Plan. A part of my reasoning is the people get an equal vote. As a member of the people of the U.S., I would rather get a vote than give all the power to the people. The Virginia Plan gave power to both the Houses of Congress and some to the people.

Also, the Virginia Plan gave larger and more populous states more representatives than the smaller and less populous states. So the smaller states had less votes than the larger states which made more people in states like Rhode Island angry. The Virginia Plan is very unfair in that regard and do not give the smaller states the respect that they deserve. The New Jersey Plan just sounds more fair for the people and that is why, as a person of the U.S., I would have voted for the New Jersey Plan.

SR-OSL



I would have to vote for the New Jersey Plan because it would have made the votes fair. The larger states wouldn’t over power the smaller ones and the smaller states would have an equal amount of votes, representatives, and the population wouldn’t affect anything. The other idea that I liked about the New Jersey Plan was that they only would have one house. Each state would send 2 representatives to the one house. With only one house it would be easier to keep organized of were they were going and the files on each meeting they had.

I feel that the Great Compromise was fair because both Plans got what they wanted, nothing more, nothing less. All states could be fair with the votes, and could have 2 people from each state,( that was the idea from the New Jersey Plan) They had 2 house, and the number of representatives from each state would be on the population of the state. ( that was from that New Jersey Plan)

AK-OSL



If I had to choose between the New Jersey Plan and the Virginia Plan, I would choose the Virginia Plan. Having three branches is a good idea. It would be fair to have one legislative branch for making laws, one executive branch to execute the laws, and one judicial branch to apply the laws. Why should small states have the same amount of representatives as the larger states? They just would have extra people. Also, in the Virginia Plan, the people get to have a say in the decisions, not the states. The people live in the states, so they should decide.

The 13 colonies need a strong central government, and that is what the Virginia Plan is providing. Having the government represent the people and not the states will give more power and representation to the houses of Congress. I vote 100 percent for the Virginia plan.

LG-OSL



I would have voted for the Virginia Plan. I think it is fair that larger states get more representatives, because they have more people living in them. The more people the more different opinions you will have, therefore more representatives might see most, if not all, the point of the people.

I also agree with the final decisions of the Great Compromise, because it states that in the first house, the House of Representatives, a state would be represented depending on the population. It also states that in the second house, the Senate, their would be two representatives for each state. That way each state has the same representation. In a way the Great Compromise brought the United States together as one plan.

MB-OSL



I would have voted for the Virginia plan because The Virginia plan would have two houses which would spread out power within the government. The two houses could keep each other in check and not make either too powerful. Also there would have to be a compromise between the two houses to do anything. They said that the government was powered by the people, not the states, so the population of a state would decide how many representatives they would have which is fair to me.

AA-OSL



If I was at the constitution convention, I would vote for New Jersey. Because New Jersey gave each state an equal vote. The Virginia Plan gave the bigger states more representatives then the little states and that makes it unfair for the littler states and I like the fact the fact that New Jersey made it fair for all the states.

Yes I agree with the Great Compromise. I think the Great Compromise was fair. It aloud New Jersey to have a second house for the legislative branch and it keeps Virginia happy because they get there two houses. And New Jersey wins and the states get equal votes and everything is fair for all the states whether are big or small.

CK- OSL



I would have voted for the Virginia Plan. My reason is because life is not always fair and the smaller states are going to have to learn this. The bigger states have more people in it and if this country is for the people, then one with more people should get more votes. I also think that that it was better to have two houses instead of one. My last reason is because the Virginia Plan was the original and the original is often better.

I think the Great Compromise was fair because all states were counted equally and because it still stuck with having two houses. I think the Great Compromise was the best way to solve the problem.

WH-OSL



I would have voted for the Virginia plan because I like how they ran their system a lot better. I would have voted for them because they have two houses and a large number of people. The more houses the more power and authority they have. If you have more people you have more representatives.

I do feel that the Great Compromise was fair because they took a little bit of each of their plans. It also made sense to do that. It saved the convention and helped a lot of people.

EF-OSL



I would have voted for the Virginia Plan. I would do this because I feel that the more people in the states and the bigger the size, the more the votes the state should have. Because the votes are representing more people. I also believe having the 2 houses are good because it creates less power for one individual house. The power becomes fairly distributed this way.

I feel that the great compromise was fair because it combined both plans. Also it gave power to the people and the states. I think the Compromise was fair and smart. It showed that congress could deal with a situation and make it fair.

GW-OSL



I agree with the New Jersey Plan. There weren't as many legislative branches but there are still three branches of the government. And every state had equal amounts of votes no matter what the size and population of the state was. It kept the smaller states votes from getting swallowed up but all the bigger states votes because they had more votes.

I don't think the Great Compromise was fair because each state had as many representatives as each other so they could votes as many times. And they represent the people and the states with the Senate and House of Representatives.

SM-OSL