All that does is gerrymander the Senate as well as the House. Definitely in the Republican playbook.
Assuming Senatorial elections remained as they are now, a difference would be that Senators would be elected by the entire population of their state rather than representing a portion of the state as most Representatives do. Every Senator would be a Senator-at-large.
This would have an interesting effect in that states where the population favors one party would see that party’s influence getting magnified. Texas, for example, has been a reliably Republican state. So if it elected five Senators, they presumably would all be Republicans. And we can assume New York’s five Senators would all be Democrats.
Unless I missed it, no one has yet pointed out that amendments to change the Senate advantage of small states are forbidden by the how–to-amend language in Article 5:
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.
Reducing the power of the Senate might be a constitutional. But none of it is practical.
You could say that with a President who keeps on talking about third terms and president-for-life, threatens the press, orders American companies out of China, and so forth, a concern with such a small defect in the U.S. constitution is quaint. We’ve got bigger threats to to democracy to deal with.
Yes, and No.
The idea that “States” have “interests” separate from their populations is patently absurd and exists only to rationalize a disenfranchisement of people vis a vis the upper chamber of Congress advocated by antidemocratic oligarchs-in-waiting . And the idea of throwing that process back to the (incredibly gerrymandered) state Legislatures is patently offensive and serves only to reinforce the validity of the first sentence of this paragraph.
Yes, let’s fuse North and South Dakota into just Dakota and split California up into North and South California (NOT East and West). We could split it just north or south of Fresno, making Fresno land on the side that’s more blue. Sounds like a great plan to me :D.
“the state” in this case, is “the state government”. There is a certain logic to having the representatives that the people in your state entrust to write and enforce state laws be the same representatives that can ensure a qualified US Senator goes to the US Capitol.
Right now, any yahoo can get elected US Senator for 6 years running on a populist message with zero prior experience in government. As a result, instead of acting as a team with the state government to jointly represent the state’s interests in an effective manner, the Senator can be completely at odds with the rest of the state, often pursuing a personal agenda.
Whether this is a bug or a feature is up to you.
I don’t think there’s a mechanism to merge two states together aside from a Constitutional amendment, is there (and that probably requires unanimous consent from all states in this case)?
I don’t think it would take anything more on the federal level than just an ordinary law. Both of the merging states would need whatever process is laid out for amending their state constitutions, though, and that’d be a tough sell.
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Thank you, D’Anconia for pointing this out.
I don’t want to create new states or to merge states. Although, I started thinking about this because of a Malcolm Gladwell podcast, “Revisionist History.” I think it is titled “Divide and Conquer.”
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.
Some states are too big and should split and some states are too small and should merge, But that’s not going to happen in this country. So we should have a more fair system in the Senate. That’s what I was proposing.
This is an interesting idea, wrong, but interesting.
In smaller states, I agree. The lens of the electorate might dictate one of the two parties we currently have . But I would suggest, that when you have at-large elections, it allows charismatic, smart, dynamic candidates with good ideas, who are not of the dominant party to succeed. That’s what I want.
I live in Ohio. I don’t think Ohio will go for Trump in 2020. In 2018 Ohio voted for Sherrod Brown for Senate for the third time. It’s because Sherrod Brown always has a great ground game, he is terrific at constituent relations, and he understands the concerns of workers. Good candidates with good messages can win in states that tend to lean the other way: ask Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Again, I don’t want to create a huge Senate. I want to increase it by 50%. Basta!
And, frankly, its fifty extra seats and that is not 50% if DC and PR were to be given statehood.
Big states like California, Texas, Florida and New York that have populations 68, 50, 41 and 37 times the smallest state, Wyoming, respectively, deserve more representation in the Senate. That’s my argument.
Under my proposal, the biggest states, CA, TX and FL would have only 2.5 times the representation in the new Senate than WY.
NY, maybe our most important state, only twice that of Wyoming.
What’s wrong with that?
How much consent is required? 2/3?
If not, it sounds like this would be fairly easy if, say, the Republicans held both houses of Congress and the Texas legislature, and decided to chop Texas up into bits to give the GOP a super-majority in the Senate.
Nothing’s necessarily “wrong with that” per se, but you’re asking smaller states to accept a change in the terms of the “deal” and give up some relative power to larger states. Do you plan to give them anything in return for this, or do you just expect them to go along with your plan out of sheer generosity or some shared sense of fairness? What’s in it for Wyoming (and all the other small states)?
I am not a Constitutional scholar, but since the clause doesn’t mention a 2/3 or other supermajority, I would assume it’s a simple majority.
Here’s What I wrote:
Thanks, by the way, for reading it. And using your intellects to calculate…
What I’m giving 2/3s of the states is an additional Senator.
Is that equitable?
At least one additional Senator, I mean, for 35 states as currently constituted.
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?
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?
The answer to the second question is that the New England, Mid-Atlantic will take care of its own. DE, NH, VT, RI and maybe, if they pay attention, WV, will be taken care of…
An amendment has to win approval of 2/3 of Congress and be ratified by 3/4 of the States (38):
And I’ve highlighted another relevant section at the end. Your proposal appears, to me at least, to run afoul of this “equal suffrage” requirement.
Touche. idem.