# If a future Senate ever again ignores a Supreme Court nominee - what could be done? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 6, 2018, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-future-senate-ever-again-ignores-a-supreme-court-nominee-what-could-be-done/822579 "2018-10-06T21:07:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-future-senate-ever-again-ignores-a-supreme-court-nominee-what-could-be-done/822579/161 "2018-10-09T20:48:58Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This whole situation couldn’t have occurred in a country with a parliamentary government. In such a system, the Prime Minister has to have a majority supporting him in the legislature; it’s how you get the job. If for some reason, the Prime Minister loses the support of their party, they hold an election to vote in a new parliament. However, the term “parliamentary government” is loose enough to cover a variety of cases. My own state (vic.aus) put through a constitutional change to ensure fixed-term parliaments: the same people who supported that change also want fixed-term federal parliaments. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-future-senate-ever-again-ignores-a-supreme-court-nominee-what-could-be-done/822579/162 "2018-10-09T21:40:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yes. DC and PR were the two that immediately came to mind. But I suspect (read: know for sure) that Trump would veto that. Anyway, first things first: Win the House. Get rid of Trump. Win back the Senate (I don’t see it happening in 2018, but maybe). Then look at statehood. DC is tiny in area, but it has a population larger than WY and VT. > > Got it. Personally, I don’t see it happening in my lifetime, but I’m pretty sure you’re a lot younger than me, so maybe you’ll see it. DC is tiny but their juries are some of the best. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-future-senate-ever-again-ignores-a-supreme-court-nominee-what-could-be-done/822579/163 "2018-10-09T21:49:10Z")
> [@YamatoTwinkie](#): > > The Senate is and has always supposed to be undemocratic. It’s a feature, not a bug. Hell, until 1914, you didn’t even get to _vote_ for a US Senator. Yes, of course. But, as happened with that amendment, we have often decided that the political science of 1789 is not as good as political science after centuries of progress. Indeed, once you move to popular election of Senators, it gets awfully tough to argue that it shouldn’t be democratic. Should the Senate still have longer terms? Sure. Be a smaller body? Sure. But should its power be arbitrarily parceled out to a small minority of voters who wield wildly excess power? Uh, no. There is no argument for that in the Federalist Papers. Beyond that, these things are a matter of degree. There was nothing like the current disparity in 1789, or 1865, or even 1914. ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-future-senate-ever-again-ignores-a-supreme-court-nominee-what-could-be-done/822579/164 "2018-10-09T22:49:05Z")
> [@YamatoTwinkie](#): > > The Senate is and has always supposed to be undemocratic. It’s a feature, not a bug. Hell, until 1914, you didn’t even get to _vote_ for a US Senator. Fine. Small states get disproportionately large representation in the Senate. Why do they get the Electoral College, too? Why do Wyoming residents get so much more bang for their vote for both President and Senate than Californians – which then, of course, gives them more power over SCOTUS as well? Makes me want to go back in time and kick Jefferson in the nuts. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-future-senate-ever-again-ignores-a-supreme-court-nominee-what-could-be-done/822579/165 "2018-10-09T23:07:46Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > YBeyond that, these things are a matter of degree. There was nothing like the current disparity in 1789, or 1865, or even 1914. I’m not sure what you mean. If you look at the 1870 census, the smallest state (NV) had 42.4K people and the largest state (NY) had 4.38M. That’s a factor of 103x in population difference. And there were about 12 out of 37 states that had 1/10 or less the population of NY. In 2010, the smallest state (WY) had 494K people and the largest state (CA) had 33.9M people. That’s a factor of 68.6x in population difference. And there are about 21 out of 50 states with 1/10 or less the population of CA. Doesn’t seem too terribly different to me. Let’s look at the 1910 census: NY has 9.11M. NV has 81.9K. Factor of 111x difference. 16 out of 46 states had 1/10 or less the population of NY. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2018, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-future-senate-ever-again-ignores-a-supreme-court-nominee-what-could-be-done/822579/166 "2018-10-10T00:34:01Z")
We might see statehood for Puerto Rico in my lifetime. But statehood for DC would require a Constitutional amendment, and I don’t see any way that could possibly happen. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2018, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-future-senate-ever-again-ignores-a-supreme-court-nominee-what-could-be-done/822579/167 "2018-10-10T01:27:16Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean. > > If you look at the 1870 census, the smallest state (NV) had 42.4K people and the largest state (NY) had 4.38M. That’s a factor of 103x in population difference. And there were about 12 out of 37 states that had 1/10 or less the population of NY. > > In 2010, the smallest state (WY) had 494K people and the largest state (CA) had 33.9M people. That’s a factor of 68.6x in population difference. And there are about 21 out of 50 states with 1/10 or less the population of CA. > > Doesn’t seem too terribly different to me. > > Let’s look at the 1910 census: NY has 9.11M. NV has 81.9K. Factor of 111x difference. 16 out of 46 states had 1/10 or less the population of NY. That’s not the measurement in question. See here: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/by-2040-two-thirds-of-americans-will-be-represented-by-30-percent-of-the-senate/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/by-2040-two-thirds-of-americans-will-be-represented-by-30-percent-of-the-senate/) ---
**Author:** ![YamatoTwinkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/cc9497/32.png) [@YamatoTwinkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YamatoTwinkie)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2018, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-future-senate-ever-again-ignores-a-supreme-court-nominee-what-could-be-done/822579/168 "2018-10-10T13:36:29Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > That’s not the measurement in question. > > See here: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/by-2040-two-thirds-of-americans-will-be-represented-by-30-percent-of-the-senate/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/by-2040-two-thirds-of-americans-will-be-represented-by-30-percent-of-the-senate/) Maybe I’m missing something. I look at all those charts and see a whole lot of flat lines. The author even caveats the 2040 projection as: > [@](#): > > In 2016, a quarter of Senate seats represent 59.5 percent of the population. That same quarter will represent 60.3 percent of the population in 24 years. The difference is real, but subtle. So we’re talking a 0.8% projected shift in Senate representation in the next 24 years. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2018, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-future-senate-ever-again-ignores-a-supreme-court-nominee-what-could-be-done/822579/169 "2018-10-10T13:38:12Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > That’s not the measurement in question. > > See here: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/by-2040-two-thirds-of-americans-will-be-represented-by-30-percent-of-the-senate/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/by-2040-two-thirds-of-americans-will-be-represented-by-30-percent-of-the-senate/) It would be helpful if you quoted the exact part of that article that you think is making a different argument. The bulk of it seems to be making the same type of argument I just made: > [@](#): > > by 2040, those five most populous states will be home to 39.6 percent of the population. That means that an additional 2.4 percent of Americans will be crammed into the constituency of the same 10 Senate seats, but that’s only slightly more than in 1870, when 38.5 percent of the country lived in the five most populous states. That is, things are not really much different than they were 100 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2018, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-future-senate-ever-again-ignores-a-supreme-court-nominee-what-could-be-done/822579/170 "2018-10-10T13:57:39Z")
Oops, I thought that was the article that included all three factors and not just population distribution. As I understand it, the basic variables are: (1) Percentage of population living in larger states; (2) How many votes winning Senate candidates receive, collectively by party (i.e., 46 Dem Senators received 20 million more votes than 54 GOP Senators); and (3) Proportion of Senate votes in which a minority of Americans voted for the side winning the vote. All three trends have different causes, having to do with the urban nature of the Democratic coalition, the increasing polarization of the Senate, and broader population trends. Somewhere there’s an article that covers all three (Vox maybe?), but I can’t find it on my phone.All three trends are moving slowly in the same direction–that is, more and more Senate decisions are being made by Senators elected by fewer and fewer people. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2018, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-future-senate-ever-again-ignores-a-supreme-court-nominee-what-could-be-done/822579/171 "2018-10-10T14:02:25Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Oops, I thought that was the article that included all three factors and not just population distribution. > > As I understand it, the basic variables are: > > (1) Percentage of population living in larger states; > (2) How many votes winning Senate candidates receive, collectively by party (i.e., 46 Dem Senators received 20 million more votes than 54 GOP Senators); and > (3) Proportion of Senate votes in which a minority of Americans voted for the side winning the vote. > > All three trends have different causes, having to do with the urban nature of the Democratic coalition, the increasing polarization of the Senate, and broader population trends. Somewhere there’s an article that covers all three (Vox maybe?), but I can’t find it on my phone.All three trends are moving slowly in the same direction–that is, more and more Senate decisions are being made by Senators elected by fewer and fewer people. OK, that helps a lot. Let me digest that and see how it stacks up against historical data. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2018, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-future-senate-ever-again-ignores-a-supreme-court-nominee-what-could-be-done/822579/172 "2018-10-10T19:44:08Z")
**Richard** : Thinking about this further, I don’t think I’m going to be able to digest it. If you come across the paper you were thinking of that would be great, but I wouldn’t expect you to spend much time on it. My initial thoughts are: Item #1 is basically the same one I did the short analysis of earlier. Items #2 and 3 would need some serious analysis because that’s not data that is readily available on the internet, based on my brief search this morning. And those two items don’t even make sense prior to 1913, of course, since Senators weren’t elected by the people until then and you can’t clearly tie a given Senator to a given political party’s vote. Granted, that’s still over 100 years of history to look at, but it doesn’t say much of anything about what the state of things were prior. Anyway, your input is much appreciated, as always. I defiantly see that the Senate could use some re-engineering, and I can get on board with making some changes. Not necessarily because things are different than they were historically, but because it wasn’t quite the right idea to begin with. I don’t want two version of the House (or even just one version with no Senate), but the states are just too out of line for the current system to make a lot of sense. How we actually go about changing that is where the problem lies, of course. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2018, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-future-senate-ever-again-ignores-a-supreme-court-nominee-what-could-be-done/822579/173 "2018-10-10T20:36:03Z")
I’ll throw out an idea - states get one extra Senator for every multiple of ten times the population of the smallest state. So if the smallest state has a million people, states get 1 extra Senator for every ten million people. Small states still have outsize power, just not quite as overwhelmingly as they do now. As long as we’re throwing out extremely long shot ideas… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2018, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-future-senate-ever-again-ignores-a-supreme-court-nominee-what-could-be-done/822579/174 "2018-10-10T21:09:04Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’ll throw out an idea - states get one extra Senator for every multiple of ten times the population of the smallest state. So if the smallest state has a million people, states get 1 extra Senator for every ten million people. > > Small states still have outsize power, just not quite as overwhelmingly as they do now. > > As long as we’re throwing out extremely long shot ideas… Long shot idea: Combine smaller states. Start with: Is there really any reason to have 2 Dakotas? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2018, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-future-senate-ever-again-ignores-a-supreme-court-nominee-what-could-be-done/822579/175 "2018-10-10T23:59:20Z")
Keep in mind that most means of tampering with the Senate require throwing out the Constitution entirely and starting over from scratch. And if we’re going to be doing that, I can think of a _lot_ of other reforms I’d like to see. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2018, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-future-senate-ever-again-ignores-a-supreme-court-nominee-what-could-be-done/822579/176 "2018-10-11T01:17:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Long shot idea: Combine smaller states. Start with: Is there really any reason to have 2 Dakotas? For that matter, is there any reason to have one Idaho. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2018, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-future-senate-ever-again-ignores-a-supreme-court-nominee-what-could-be-done/822579/177 "2018-10-11T01:47:13Z")
The Senate and the EC were agreed upon compromises to get the small states to join the union. If not, then those states would not have joined. You cannot cheat on a deal like that and not get some push back. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’ll throw out an idea - states get one extra Senator for every multiple of ten times the population of the smallest state. So if the smallest state has a million people, states get 1 extra Senator for every ten million people. > > Small states still have outsize power, just not quite as overwhelmingly as they do now. > > As long as we’re throwing out extremely long shot ideas… This would require an amendment to the Constitution which is expressly unamendable. Under Article V, no future amendment to the Constitution may deny a state equal representation in the Senate without its consent. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2018, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-future-senate-ever-again-ignores-a-supreme-court-nominee-what-could-be-done/822579/178 "2018-10-11T03:58:55Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Keep in mind that most means of tampering with the Senate require throwing out the Constitution entirely and starting over from scratch. And if we’re going to be doing that, I can think of a _lot_ of other reforms I’d like to see. And _that_ is going to require 3/4 of the states to agree, or a civil war. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-future-senate-ever-again-ignores-a-supreme-court-nominee-what-could-be-done/822579.md?page=8)