Under Article V of the Constitution, no state can lose its equal representation in the Senate without state approval. And no state will willingly relinquish its right to review the Senate. Connecticut Congressman Roger Sherman is accused of proposing an alternative to a “bicameral convention” consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Each state, Sherman suggested, would send an equal number of representatives to the Senate and one representative to the House of Representatives for the state`s 30,000 residents. Perhaps the biggest debate held by delegates of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 was the number of representatives of each state in the legislative branch of the new administration, the U.S. Congress. As is often the case in government and politics, the solution of a great debate required a great compromise – in this case the Great Compromise of 1787. At the beginning of the Constitutional Convention, delegates appeared at a single-chamber congress made up of a specified number of representatives from each state. When the Connecticut compromise was voted on on July 16, the Senate resembled the Congress of Confederations.
In previous weeks of the debate, James Madison of Virginia, Rufus King of New York and Governor Morris of Pennsylvania strongly opposed the compromise for this reason.  For the nationalists, the vote of the Convention in favour of compromise was a crushing defeat. But on July 23, they found a way to save their vision of an independent elite senate. Just before most of the Convention`s work was referred to the Committee for details, Governor Morris and Rufus King gave the opportunity to individually elect members of the Senate States instead of voting in bulk, as they had done in the Congress of Confederations. Then Oliver Ellsworth, a prominent proponent of the Connecticut compromise, supported his proposal and the Convention reached a lasting compromise.  Since the Convention early on approved the Virginia Plan`s proposal that senators have long terms, the restoration of the vision of this plan of individually powerful senators has prevented the Senate from becoming a strong protection of federalism. State governments have lost their direct control over congressional decisions to legislate at the national level. Since personally influential senators have been given much longer terms than the state legislators who elected them, they have become essentially independent. The compromise continued to serve the own interests of the political leaders of the small states, who were guaranteed access to more Senate seats than they would otherwise have been able to obtain.
 Exactly 200 years earlier, the authors of the U.S. Constitution gathered at Independence Hall had reached an extremely important agreement. Their so-called “Great Compromise” (or Connecticut compromise in honor of its architects, S.G.S. MPs Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut) offered a dual system of congressional representation. In the House of Representatives, each state would be allocated a number of seats relative to its population. In the Senate, all states would have the same number of seats. Today, we believe that this regulation is self-evident; in the summer of 1787 welk-hot, it was a new idea. July 16, 1987 began with a light breeze, cloudless skies and a spirit of celebration. On that day, 200 senators and representatives took a special train to Philadelphia to celebrate a unique anniversary of Congress. The Connecticut compromise (also known as the Grand Compromise of 1787 or the Sherman Compromise) was an agreement between large and small states during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, which defined in part the legislative structure and representation that each state would have under the U.S. Constitution. It maintained the bicameral legislation proposed by Roger Sherman, as well as the proportional state vote in the House of Commons or the House of Representatives, but required that the House of Lords or the Senate be weighted in the same way between states.