# The Senate is unfair. Thoughts on Changing Article 1. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 24, 2019, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-is-unfair-thoughts-on-changing-article-1/839147 "2019-08-24T06:03:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2019, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-is-unfair-thoughts-on-changing-article-1/839147/41 "2019-08-27T10:48:27Z")
All I have to offer is the observation that it would make more sense to elect _three_ senators from each state. That way at least one would come up every two years. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2019, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-is-unfair-thoughts-on-changing-article-1/839147/42 "2019-08-27T13:28:31Z")
> [@E-DUB](#): > > I’m good with the idea that every 40 years or so the largest state should be bisected and that the smallest one should merge with one (or more) of its neighbors, keeping the number at fifty. (Of course you couldn’t do much about Alaska or Hawaii. And maybe for sentiment , leave the original 13 alone.) > > But the bar on changing the composition of the Senate could be gotten around simply by doing TWO amendments, the first removing said proscription, and the second actually doing it. (I say “simply” even though I know it wouldn’t be.) It could also be worked around by an amendment that did not affect states’ equal representation in the Senate, but left that body with no power or responsibility other than selecting one building, roadway, or geographic feature each year to name after Ronald Reagan (see, I’m bending over backwards to give something to the other side of the aisle!). ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2019, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-is-unfair-thoughts-on-changing-article-1/839147/43 "2019-08-27T13:43:27Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > As for splitting California, Texas, and so forth, to get around this – it’s up to the Supreme Court, but if the whole idea is to reduce the suffrage of other states, that appears to me unconstitutional as well. Clearly, splitting up states (with the consent of the affected state legislature\*) is constitutional, given that it’s happened several times. \*The most recent such partition was facilitated by the fact that the legitimate state legislature of Virginia was meeting in Union-controlled territory, eliminating any need to consult the gang of traitors assembled in Richmond. > [@candide](#): > > He suggests that The legislation that allowed the Republic of Texas to become the state of Texas also allows Texas to be split into five (or six) parts. The United States has already approved this legislation in 1845. This provision seems to have been left out of the currently operative 1870 admission of Texas to the Union, so it’s a dead letter. > [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > All I have to offer is the observation that it would make more sense to elect _three_ senators from each state. That way at least one would come up every two years. It would make more sense as a matter of abstract neatness. However, the practical effect would be to exacerbate the distortions created by the electoral college system; given that, it would be preferable to give each state only one senator (which would not run afoul of the equal representation clause) and/or to expand the House (thus diluting the flat +2 electoral vote allocation for each state). ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2019, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-is-unfair-thoughts-on-changing-article-1/839147/44 "2019-08-27T13:58:48Z")
> [@candide](#): > > How do you get 38? I just read the Constitution to be certain. > > By my calculation, 2/3 of 50 is always 34. How do you calculate 38? True but 3/4 of 50 is (rounded up to) 38. Not really sure why you think only 2/3 of the states need to ratify an amendment for it to take effect. BUT the reality is you need unanimous consent of all the states. Re-read the last line in Article V. > [@](#): > > no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2019, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-is-unfair-thoughts-on-changing-article-1/839147/45 "2019-08-27T16:09:31Z")
> [@candide](#): > > He suggests that The legislation that allowed the Republic of Texas to become the state of Texas also allows Texas to be split into five (or six) parts. The United States has already approved this legislation in 1845. It’s very provocative. Gladwell got the tense wrong. The legislation _allowed_ Texas to be split up into other states. [This map](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Wpdms_republic_of_texas.svg/800px-Wpdms_republic_of_texas.svg.png) shows the original borders of Texas - which includes land that is now part of six different states. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2019, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-is-unfair-thoughts-on-changing-article-1/839147/46 "2019-08-27T19:22:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Gladwell got the tense wrong. The legislation _allowed_ Texas to be split up into other states. [This map](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Wpdms_republic_of_texas.svg/800px-Wpdms_republic_of_texas.svg.png) shows the original borders of Texas - which includes land that is now part of six different states. Let’s actually look at the part of the Treaty that deals with this > [@](#): > > New states, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said state of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said state, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution. It looks like this would be in effect even today since there is no expiration. So Texas can break up into at most 5 sovereign states (not become parts of other states). But wait! Can’t any state do that if they wish? Ahh but admission of new states require the consent of Congress. I read this as the consent of Congress to admit these states has been given a priori. > [@Steve\_MB](#): > > This provision seems to have been left out of the currently operative 1870 admission of Texas to the Union, so it’s a dead letter. Although a lot of references use the term “re-admitted” Texas was not admitted in 1870 since it never seceded (_Texas v. White_) so the Treaty is still in effect. ---
**Author:** ![Bijou\_Drains](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bijou_drains/32/2814_2.png) [@Bijou\_Drains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bijou_Drains)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2019, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-is-unfair-thoughts-on-changing-article-1/839147/47 "2019-08-27T20:01:05Z")
Maybe it was mentioned but up until around 1920 senators were not voted on directly by voters. They were picked by state legislators. So it was a big change to direct election of senators. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2019, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-is-unfair-thoughts-on-changing-article-1/839147/48 "2019-08-27T20:16:12Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Let’s actually look at the part of the Treaty that deals with this > > Although a lot of references use the term “re-admitted” Texas was not admitted in 1870 since it never seceded (_Texas v. White_) so the Treaty is still in effect. The treaty isn’t still in effect. It never was in effect. A treaty was negotiated between Texas and the United States and then submitted to the Senate for approval. The Senate rejected it. Congress then passed a separate bill authorizing the President to annex Texas (subject to Texan approval). ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2019, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-is-unfair-thoughts-on-changing-article-1/839147/49 "2019-08-28T11:37:14Z")
If a corporation can be a “person” with goals and responsibilities separate from the people who happen to work there, a state can as well. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2019, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-is-unfair-thoughts-on-changing-article-1/839147/50 "2019-08-28T15:53:25Z")
My problem with these proposals is that they don’t try to make the government system better, they try to make it more liberal (which I know is the same thing for many people). This puts the proposal in the same category as gerrymandering. While I am sympathetic to the goal I am aware that if the roles were reversed and it was conservatives attempting to make these changes the Dope would be apoplectic. For example, I can’t imagine the uproar if Republicans were trying to increase the size of SCOTUS right now to forestall future Democrat attempts to pack the court. Instead of trying to game the system maybe Democrats should change their message or do a better job of getting their message across. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2019, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-is-unfair-thoughts-on-changing-article-1/839147/51 "2019-08-28T16:06:27Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > It takes 38 states to ratify an amendment. Why would any of the 15 states that do not get an additional senator ratify this plan? As others have mentioned, it would take all 50 states because “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” (U.S. Const. art. V). **candide** , unless you think you can convince _every_ state in this nation that such an amendment is in their best interest, your proposal is dead in the water. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2019, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-is-unfair-thoughts-on-changing-article-1/839147/52 "2019-08-31T08:11:42Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > As others have mentioned, it would take all 50 states because “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” (U.S. Const. art. V). > > **candide** , unless you think you can convince _every_ state in this nation that such an amendment is in their best interest, your proposal is dead in the water. > > ~Max I think it could be done with fewer than fifty states but it would have to be a multi-step process. First, you’d have to enact a constitutional amendment removing the section you referred to. This amendment would not deprive any state of its equal suffrage so it would not require the consent of every state. It could be enacted by the normal majority for an amendment. Then once the amendment was enacted, you could enact a second amendment changing the way the Senate worked. There would no longer be a requirement to get every state’s consent because that requirement would have been eliminated by the first amendment. This amendment could now also be enacted by a normal majority. ---
**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:** [August 31, 2019, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-is-unfair-thoughts-on-changing-article-1/839147/53 "2019-08-31T12:38:29Z")
The general interpretation is that a provision of the Constitution which limits what amendments can be passed is itself, by its nature, unamendable. Anyway, it’d be easier to just scrap the Constitution entirely and start over. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2019, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-is-unfair-thoughts-on-changing-article-1/839147/54 "2019-08-31T14:42:13Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The general interpretation is that a provision of the Constitution which limits what amendments can be passed is itself, by its nature, unamendable. > > Anyway, it’d be easier to just scrap the Constitution entirely and start over. Which General came up with that interpretation? Seriously, does it SAY that? “Not only can’t you amend sections X, Y, and Z, but you can’t amend this one either.” Because, if not… ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2019, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-is-unfair-thoughts-on-changing-article-1/839147/55 "2019-08-31T16:15:06Z")
Even if this scheme were allowed, it just gets us back to: “Why would any of the 15 states that do not get an additional senator ratify this plan?” ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2019, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-is-unfair-thoughts-on-changing-article-1/839147/56 "2019-08-31T17:01:35Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The general interpretation is that a provision of the Constitution which limits what amendments can be passed is itself, by its nature, unamendable. > > Anyway, it’d be easier to just scrap the Constitution entirely and start over. I disagree. I don’t think there’s any part of the Constitution that’s completely permanent. Constitutional amendments can even eliminate existing parts of the Constitution. Look at how the 21st Amendment overturned the 18th Amendment. In that case, the new text explicitly repealed the older text. But the 12th Amendment changed the procedure of electing Vice Presidents without explicitly repealing the procedure in Section V. However, you didn’t see Hillary Clinton arguing that Section V was still in the Constitution and she was entitled to be the Vice President. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2019, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-is-unfair-thoughts-on-changing-article-1/839147/57 "2019-08-31T18:25:10Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Even if this scheme were allowed, it just gets us back to: “Why would any of the 15 states that do not get an additional senator ratify this plan?” Sometimes, with some people, it is difficult to explain why the gift of democratic equality actually grows by being shared. The Major Dudes tell us that we must cherish such people as brothers and sisters, even when they clutch undeserved power and scream “Mine!”. Of course, that is not always easy. Do we dare? We do dare, do dare. All the livelong day. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2019, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-is-unfair-thoughts-on-changing-article-1/839147/58 "2019-08-31T18:50:29Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Even if this scheme were allowed, it just gets us back to: “Why would any of the 15 states that do not get an additional senator ratify this plan?” If people weren’t willing to give up positions of privilege in the interest of fairness and it simply being the right thing to do we wouldn’t have ANY civil rights laws, because they were passes by those with the privilege. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2019, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-is-unfair-thoughts-on-changing-article-1/839147/59 "2019-09-11T18:07:15Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I think it could be done with fewer than fifty states but it would have to be a multi-step process. First, you’d have to enact a constitutional amendment removing the section you referred to. This amendment would not deprive any state of its equal suffrage so it would not require the consent of every state. It could be enacted by the normal majority for an amendment. > > Then once the amendment was enacted, you could enact a second amendment changing the way the Senate worked. There would no longer be a requirement to get every state’s consent because that requirement would have been eliminated by the first amendment. This amendment could now also be enacted by a normal majority. The constitutionality of such a procedure might make for an interesting thread on its own. Nevertheless, this would be extremely difficult to pull off, especially if it takes a number of years for enough states to ratify phase one. Even so, **candide** would still need to convince some of the small states to give up their protection, and then convince them again to give up their equal representation. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-is-unfair-thoughts-on-changing-article-1/839147/60 "2019-09-13T00:18:12Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Anyway, it’d be easier to just scrap the Constitution entirely and start over. I agree. Far easier. There is a precedent. The Articles of Confederation required approval from every state, to be changed. And yet George Washington took office, under the new Constitution, without that. The basic idea of the Articles of Confederation – weak executive, strong legislature – is better than the [presidential system](https://delong.typepad.com/linz_perils_presidencialism.pdf) that replaced it. But improving the Articles of Confederation by amendment may have been impossible due to the requirement for unanimity before a change could take effect. Throwing out the whole thing gave more of a a feeling of legitimacy. (So much so that holdout states eventually bought in.) I can’t imagine letting the President pardon whomever he wants ever being passed as an amendment. You can only slip in such outrages when you change everything. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-is-unfair-thoughts-on-changing-article-1/839147.md?page=2)