The Great Compromise of 1787 gave greater state representation in the House of Commons by population, and small states obtained the same representation in the House of Lords. Many delegates called for proportional representation in both chambers, while the smaller state delegates decided not to have a constitution, was better than the system proposed by Madison. As such, the compromise balanced the needs of both small states that wanted unicameral power and large states that committed themselves to bicameral legislation, paving the way for constitutional change. In the end, the connecticut compromise maintained the United Convention and led to the bicameral Convention system, where the House of Commons is based on proportional representation and where each state has the same representation in the House of Lords. Exactly 200 years ago, the authors of the U.S. Constitution gathered at Independence Hall 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. In the decision on the question of representation, the debate focused on the slaves who exist in the population of a state and which led to the formation of the three-fifths compromise. Under this agreement, each state had to count three-fifths of its slaves out of its total population. Prior to this agreement, the slave states called for an increase in their representation in Congress by counting all slaves in the community. On the other hand, opponents have argued that slaves are not citizens and therefore have no rights. It was not necessary to count them in the context of the population. This agreement allowed discussions to continue and resulted in the three-fifths compromise, which further complicated the issue of popular representation in Parliament. Differences in views on representation threatened to derail ratification of the U.S. Constitution, with delegates on both sides pledging to reject the document if they did not get away with it. The solution took the form of a compromise proposed by statesmen Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut.
On July 4, delegates developed a compromise plan that sidelined Franklin`s proposal. On 16 July, the Convention adopted the Great Compromise with a heartbreaking one-voice lead. As the celebrants of 1987 duly said, there probably would not have been a Constitution without that vote. The Great Compromise, also known as the Connecticut Compromise, the Great Compromise of 1787 or the Sherman Compromise, was an agreement between the large and small states, which defined in part the representation of each state in accordance with the Constitution of the United States and the legislative branch. It happened in 1787. The compromise on Connecticut resulted from a debate among delegates about how each state could be represented in Congress. The Great Compromise led to the creation of a two-chamber congress. The House of Representatives, which is determined by the population of a state, was also created.