The US Senate was created by the The Great Compromise of 1787. It was originally created as so big states wouldn’t lord their power over little ones. The only problem? It is one of the least democratic institutions in the world, from a country that stands for (or tries to stand for?) democracy.
Think about it. In Michigan where I live, there are about 10 million people or so. The state of Wyoming has under 500 thousand. So in Wyoming, a small handful of people have the same voting power in Washington as Mich. It’s outrageous!
Even more hard to understand are the states. Most states (Nebraska is the only state with a unicameral legislature, I believe) have a state senate. In Mich., again, each county sends two representatives to the state legislature. Why does each county have to be equal in representation? It makes even less sense!
My question plain and simple: Has the time come for the Senate (US and states) to go?
This can’t be true. According to Wiki, the Michigan senate has 38 members, but there are 83 counties in Michigan. Also Reynolds v. Sims, if I am not mistaken, does not allow legislative districts to be too unequal in size, except the federal senate, of course.
Not anymore. The Supreme Court ruled unequal representation in state legislatures to be unconstitutional in the 1960s. Of course, that just makes state bicameralism even more pointless, as most states just divide the state into senate districts that function the same way as house districts.
Inside the framework of a union of states (states themselves are unitary, and aren’t unions of counties, so a state legislature based on counties would be even more bizarre), I would probably create a unicameral Congress with a fraction of the seats reserved to be apportioned equally among the states. But I also want a unicorn and a billion dollars.
So move to Wyoming! I think the framers had a mind to population management when they came up with the power balance of our government system. You see under the current system the very vocal voters who think that the system is shafting them will move to less populous rural states (ie right wing) so that their votes will count more, leaving the more populous states to normal people. However because all the right wing wackos congregate in the same states, that segment of the voting public gets their voice watered down, so in the end it all balances out. No cites.
No, that’s still just politically impossible; there could still theoretically be a Constitutional Convention, revolution or coup that changes it (not that any of those are likely to be a good idea, mind).
Fair enough. But I always assumed that any political proposal advanced on these boards were to be accomplished through the normal political process, not violent revolution.
However, even a new constitutional convention would have to comply with Article V limitations, so no time machines outlawing the slave trade before 1808 and no denial of equal suffrage in the Senate.
Keep the Senate, but remove its absolute veto on all public affairs to something akin to Germany’s Bundesrat - it only has a veto on matters that directly affect State powers.
As a resident of a state with a population of around 750,000, I think the Senate is the only place where we can make our voice heard on the national stage.
To put it in Vermont terms, how would you feel if the state Senate functioned like the federal Senate and the 156,545 residents of Chittenden County were being outvoted by the 13,276 residents of Essex and Grand Isle Counties?
I don’t know why people think such a radical change wouldn’t split the country apart. It would never be voted in, constitutionally, so the only way to accomplish it would be by force of arms.
The US is a huge country with a diverse population. One size does not fit all.
I think that the OP is missing the historical significance of the Senate.
When the Constitution was drawn up, Senators were never meant to represent YOUR interests - that’s what the House is for. Senators represented their state qua a soveriegn body in a Federalist system. In that respect, the Senate is quite egalitarian in that the sovereign State of Michigan has the same representation as the sovereign State of North Carolina. I’m sure you can see where this is going.
After 1865, the idea of the Senate representing sovereign states really took a backseat as state sovereignty was virtually eliminated after the Civil War. However, there still lerked the idea that States (as opposed to The People) still had an interest in Federal law and policy. Think about issues today. Clearly the State of Arizona has an interest in immigration law independent of the residents of Arizona’s interest. The health care bill (Obamacare) was challenged in court, not by individuals but by states. The idea is that in the Senate, the Senators take action based on what is best for their State, not the people in the state (although one would hope there is considerable overlap).
So now we get to the Populist movement of the late 19th Century. Somehow the idea of the state legislatures picking Senators was seen as undemocratic. IMO (like anyone cares) this was a perfect storm of two things - a desire in the post-Civil War time to strip states of any power in running the Federal government and a growing focus on the people as important factors in government policy. Populism shifted to Progressivism in the early 20th Century and by then, states themselves were pushing to do away with direct appointments. I think this was a mistake. If Oregon wants to choose Senators by popular election that’s fine (the Legislature still has ultimate authority but they were compelled by state law to rubber-stamp the people’s choice) but they wanted to compel the other states to do the same. I’m not exactly sure why states felt it to be a national issue and not a local one but they were pushing for an Article V convention and so to avoid a Constitutional Convention, Congress passed the 17th Amendment and the states quickly ratified it.
Because we have had popular elections of Senators for almost 100 years, we forget the role of the Senate and in fact, one can argue if the Senate even fulfills its original role anymore. Go out and find 100 voters and ask who their Senator represents. I would not be surprised if all 100 say “Me.” and 0 say “My state.” So what is the solution. There are very small movements growing to repeal the 17th Amendment and return power back to the states. As of right now, I don’t think it will go anywhere but one can never tell how the pendulum can swing and if this country decides to move ack to a New Federalism then repealing the 17th Amendent will be the first large change we see.
First off, I’m not a huge fan of pure democracy. I’m more concerned with…
(a) Division of power to keep any one group from dominating government.
(b) Establishing good governance.
Both of these require non-democratic representation. You need other viewpoints. To me, the important thing to remember is that the representatives of Tinytown USA might have a perspective and knowledge nobody else knows. Moreover, they’re less likely to go along with stupid ideas no matter how popular they are in BigMegaState.
But third, and no less important, it binds all Americans together in a way the rest of government does not. I’m sure the more populous states would love to completely own the government. But that wouldn’t be healthy for anyone else. Here, all states have equal representation in the deliberative body - the government branch designed for cold analysis and amore distant view. That’s no trivial advantage. Here, every Senator is equal no matter what state they hail from.
What’s your evidence for this? I know you don’t have a cite, but is there any support for this at all? It’s flatly contradicted by history.
Most states were essentially independent nations at the very beginning. There’s no reason to believe anybody would want to move very far from their state of origin or that it would be desirable to move people en masse in this fashion. Or at least this was the case in 1783.
Recall that even a trip from Boston to Pennsylvania (two of the most populous cities of the day) could sometimes take a couple weeks. And that there was no concept of Western states at this point.
Further, it wasn’t “right wing wackos” that typically set out to explore the wilderness but homesteaders. Anybody with sufficient time and resources to be a political dissident would prefer to stay near printing presses, rather than striking out on their own (which is still true to this day)).
Besides, if you were a voter in 1783, that meant you were a landowner. It’s much more common now for people to move hundreds of miles, but back then, very few people even traveled much further than a couple towns over, much less relocated their home. It’s a stretch to think the writers of the Constitution thought it would become a common practice.
Heck, it’s still not all that common (though it’s far from unusual) to move more than 100 miles from your birthplace, even if we are better traveled than back then.
No it doesn’t. It only prohibits an amendment that would deprive a state of equal suffrage in the Senate without that state’s consent. A unanimously ratified amendment would be within the existing rules.
There are probably other ways to get around this. An amendment could simply deprive the Senate of almost all real power. We’d still have one, and the little states would still have their equal say, it just wouldn’t do much. I think it’s an open question whether one amendment could remove the requirement that amendments not deprive states of Senate suffrage, then a later amendment could do just that.
