Making the US Senate More Representative

[lpetrich]

The Electoral College is well-known for being imperfectly representative. The Senate has even worse disproportions. Each state gets exactly two Senators regardless of its population. However, the Senate has a lower profile than the Presidency, so its disproportions are not as publicized.

Its disproportions are amplified by its filibuster rule. That rule permits a Senator to talk and talk and talk until either (1) the Senator gets what he/she wants or (2) a "cloture" vote of at least 3/5 of the Senate. In recent decades, Senators have been permitted to introduce holds. These are threats to do the traditional kind of filibuster, and they strike me as much like the fake war of Star Trek TOS: "A Taste of Armageddon". That seemed to me to be extremely farfetched, until I learned of what the filibuster had become.


Democracy in decline: the rise of minority rule - Vox
The U.S. Senate is facing a legitimacy crisis – ThinkProgress
The Senate is so crazily designed it would be literally illegal for a US state to copy it - Vox

One of the more curious aspects of American democracy is that it is literally unconstitutional for states to adopt the same system of government as the nation as a whole. In the case of Reynolds v. Sims in 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that all state legislature districts have to have roughly equal populations, because the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment enshrines a principle of "one man, one vote." That means that an institution like the US Senate, with wildly unequal populations in its various "districts," cannot exist at the state level — at least not anymore.

There is a problem with altering the Senate. In the Constitution, Article V states "... and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Roosevelt Institute: Fixing the Senate discusses the problem, then considers various fixes.

 

[lpetrich]

The "Fixing the Senate" paper started with the Senate's disproportion. WY's residents have 67 times the Senate representation as CA's residents.

A majority of the US population lives in CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, NC -- only 10 states. But they have only 10% of the Senate's votes. These 164 million people thus have the same representation as the 7.9 million people in the 10 least populous states.

When the Constitution was ratified, the most populous state was Virginia and the least populous one Delaware, with a representation ratio of 11.7.

As to why it happened, it was likely because small-state politicians did not want to become nobodies. That may have been necessary to get the Constitution adopted, but that is now an anachronism. Is there anything that can justify such affirmative action for the inhabitants of low-population states? Yes, affirmative action, to use AOC's phrase for the Electoral College.

This inequality is unusual in international terms. The US stands out among the world’s democracies for having a second chamber that is one of the most powerful and, by far, the least democratic. Roughly half of the world’s countries, including highly economically successful nations, such as Denmark, Iceland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, and Sweden, have only one chamber—elected generally on a one-person, one-vote basis.5 Others—including the UK, Canada, and Germany—have unelected second chambers that are much weaker than the US Senate and perform functions that in relative terms appear mostly advisory. Even those developed countries, such as Australia, that do have powerful second chambers are not marred by as much inequality. While the US senatorial inequality ratio is 67 to 1, the comparable inequality between the most overrepresented and underrepresented territorial units in Australia is only 13 to 1. This gap has been fairly consistent over time; at federation, in 1901, Australia’s senatorial inequality between its least and its most populous state was eight to one, and this inequality has increased only slightly in the years since. Indeed, one study identifies only the second chambers of Brazil, Argentina, and Russia as less evenly represented than the United States’ (Stepan 1999).

 

[Trausti]

Why is it always ignored that it’s the United STATES.

 

[lpetrich]

"The Senate is undemocratic, but the framers and others have sought to justify its existence on other grounds, including effectiveness, protection of minority rights, and federalism."

On effectiveness, the first one, having six-year terms was presented as a way of having long-term stability. But the filibuster interferes with that. It's been weakened in recent years, for doing appointments, but it remains in place for legislation.

"A second rationale for the Senate was to cool off the supposed democratic excesses of the House of Representatives, in particular for minority rights. There is evidence that the Senate performs this function, though primarily to the benefit of the elite rich minority, rather than racial and other vulnerable minorities."

The third one is federalism, having representation for subunits. "Thus, federalism today is not about only the federal and state governments but also the district government, tribal governments, and territorial governments. From a nation of 13 states, America is now a nation of 50 states, 573 tribes, five territories, and a federal district." and "Yet through a series of court and other policy decisions, these newer units of federalism have been downgraded."

Problems:

• "The Senate Entrenches Rich, White, Male Rule"
• "The Senate Does Not Represent the Full US Population"
• "The Senate’s Inequality Affects Policy Outputs"

"The US is alone among advanced democracies for denying the vote to its federal district and offshore territories." - although several other nations have federal districts, they are all represented in the national governments. Other nations vary in overseas territories, however.

"Small states also help amplify corporate lobbyists’ influence." "Other effects stem from the mere fact of having a second chamber with veto power." "The US is unusual among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) states in that its Senate has been singularly unable to ratify major climate change legislation." "To the extent that the parties differ on policy questions such as distribution of economic gains—and political research has shown that this gap is pronounced and growing over time (Lee 2009)—this Republican structural advantage makes the US less egalitarian than it otherwise would be."

"But a wealth of research on the House of Representatives, US state legislatures, and other countries has found that increased minority representation leads to more prominority legislation, implementation, agenda-shaping, party coalition–shaping, and voter turnout (Griffin 2014)."

There are also class impacts that mark not just the Senate but all of Congress. Research by political scientist Kristina Miler finds that the poor are essentially unrepresented in Congress, because poor people neither serve in office or have their interests effectively represented by others. As a consequence, the body spends only 1 to 2 percent of its time on poverty-related matters and has made historically underinformed and ineffective interventions on poverty-related issues (Miler 2018). Working-class people suffer from a similar lack of representation, and an almost complete lack of union-friendly legislation is the result (Carnes 2013). Ineffective Senate (and overall governmental) responses have failed to check rising income inequality, which in turn polarizes legislators and makes their work less effective (Bonica et al. 2013).

Which makes AOC unusual.

 

[Bronzeage]

The original idea behind the Senate and it's twofer rule, was that the Senators were agents of the State Government, who acted as ministers to the Federal Government. Most US Senators were chosen by their State Legislatures. In the past 200 years more states switched to election by popular vote for Senators.

This mattered more when the Federal Government was a much smaller institution. The twentieth century saw a gradual shift of power from State Governments to the Federal Government because the economy was now integral through out the nation. It was not possible for State Governments to properly respond to events like the Flood of 1927, the Depression of 1929, or the mobilization for WW2.

The Senate maybe and anachronism, but it changing it is not something to be taken lightly.

 

[lpetrich]

What to do?

Senate Abolition (or Fundamental Weakening)

The late Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) has proposed abolishing the Senate outright. It would require major Constitutional changes. An alternative is to weaken it into more of an advisory role, much like some other nations' second chambers.

Filibuster Reform

It's already been abolished for executive and judiciary appointments, and all that remains is abolishing or weakening it for legislation. Weakening it like lowering the cloture threshold for each day of debate.

Split Up California

David Faris: into the states of Sacramento, San Diego, Anaheim, Los Angeles, Fresno, San Jose, and San Francisco.

Establish Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico

Give Representation to the Nonstates

Equally American: one senator for DC, one for the territories. This paper: two for DC, two for the Atlantic territories, two for the Pacific territories, and two for the American Indian tribes. Each one would also get one Representative each, with in the Atlantic, Puerto Rico getting four and the Virgin Islands getting one.

The paper's conclusion:

In the Federalist Papers, James Madison thought it unlikely that the Senate would “be able to transform itself, by gradual usurpations, into an independent and aristocratic body.” However, he was certain that “if such a revolution should ever happen from causes which the foresight of man cannot guard against, the House of Representatives, with the people on their side, will at all times be able to bring back the Constitution to its primitive form and principles. Against the force of the immediate representatives of the people, nothing will be able to maintain even the constitutional authority of the Senate, but such a display of enlightened policy, and attachment to the public good, as will divide with that branch of the legislature the affections and support of the entire body of the people themselves.” Fundamentally reforming the Senate is a way to realign the body with the functions it was meant to serve

An elite body with more long-term perspective than the House.

 

[lpetrich]

I have thought of a scheme: add nationally-elected at-large Senators. Each state would continue to have its own Senators alongside these ones, thus satisfying Article V.

These at-large ones could be elected by party and allocated by proportional representation. They could be made proportional separate from the states' seats (parallel voting) or with the states' seats also (mixed-member voting). Germany and New Zealand both use mixed-member voting.

To use some common terminology, each state would have one or two district seats, and the at-large seats would be list seats, from the common practice in proportional-representation systems of each party publishing a list of the candidates that it wants to seat.

 

[lpetrich]

Why is it always ignored that it’s the United STATES.

So what about that?

 

[Elixir]

Why is it always ignored that it’s the United STATES.

That's why turning California into five or six states is such a great idea.
Of course that would be tyranny by the current majority, which is obviously counter to what the Founders intended.
The Founders were quite happy with their tyranny by the majority, as it was at the time. But not everyone can always be landed gentry, so as the days of a white majority draw to a close, the Founders' intent will be inevitably perverted regardless of how many states California turns into.
Time to get over it, and may we displaced ones satisfy ourselves with fond reminiscence of our glory days as the Master Race.

 

[Derec]

Or just reorganize all states.

Although I am kinda partial to a state of San Andreas containing cities of Los Santos, San Fierro and Las Venturas, eh I mean Los Angeles, San Francisco and Las Vegas.

 

[Elixir]

Or just reorganize all states.

Although I am kinda partial to a state of San Andreas containing cities of Los Santos, San Fierro and Las Venturas, eh I mean Los Angeles, San Francisco and Las Vegas.

Not the worst idea, but it's not going to prevent the dilution of the Master Race gene pool. Only some good old fashioned genocide is going to do that.

 

[Jarhyn]

Or just reorganize all states.

Although I am kinda partial to a state of San Andreas containing cities of Los Santos, San Fierro and Las Venturas, eh I mean Los Angeles, San Francisco and Las Vegas.

Not the worst idea, but it's not going to prevent the dilution of the Master Race gene pool. Only some good old fashioned genocide is going to do that.

Shhh, quit trying to give them ideas.

 

[Worldtraveller]

A majority of the US population lives in CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, NC -- only 10 states. But they have only 10% of the Senate's votes. These 164 million people thus have the same representation as the 7.9 million people in the 10 least populous states.

I think that's a typo. 10 states, by definition, have 20% of the senate vote. That doesn't change the rest of the analysis that I can tell.

 

[lpetrich]

A majority of the US population lives in CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, NC -- only 10 states. But they have only 10% of the Senate's votes. These 164 million people thus have the same representation as the 7.9 million people in the 10 least populous states.

I think that's a typo. 10 states, by definition, have 20% of the senate vote. That doesn't change the rest of the analysis that I can tell.

You're right. They are 10 out of 50 states or 20% of the states.

 

[lpetrich]

The Senate represents states, not people. That’s the problem. The Supreme Court confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh spurred a lively discussion about institutional design. - Vox

We have come a long way since the founding. Political scientist Daniel J. Hopkins, in his new book, The Increasingly United States, traces how America has gone from “all politics is local” to a world in which national issues dominate even local conflicts.

Hopkins devotes an entire chapter to the question of whether people think of themselves as Americans or as citizens of their states. Across a wide range of measures, he shows that Americans see themselves as Americans first, citizens of their states second. As he puts it: “Compared to their attachment to the nation as a whole, their place-based attachment is markedly weaker. What is more, the content of state-level identities is typically divorced from politics.”

That does not get into the issue of regional identities, like New Englander or Southern Californian -- multistate regions and part-of-state regions. If one wanted to make states match regional identities, then one would break up the more populous states and merge the less populous states.

I don’t know of any research to prove it, but I am pretty sure very few Americans think of themselves as first and foremost citizens of their congressional district.

...
Around the world, most upper chambers are less powerful than the lower chambers that represent the people more directly. In the United Kingdom, the House of Lords can mostly only delay things that the House of Commons wants to do.

If the Senate is to be justified on the grounds that states need a say, its powers should be determined by that justification.

"States' rights" is a slogan of expediency, something like "states have rights to do what I like, and don't have rights to do what I don't like."

 

[Politesse]

The "Fixing the Senate" paper started with the Senate's disproportion. WY's residents have 67 times the Senate representation as CA's residents.

A majority of the US population lives in CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, NC -- only 10 states. But they have only 10% of the Senate's votes. These 164 million people thus have the same representation as the 7.9 million people in the 10 least populous states.

When the Constitution was ratified, the most populous state was Virginia and the least populous one Delaware, with a representation ratio of 11.7.

As to why it happened, it was likely because small-state politicians did not want to become nobodies. That may have been necessary to get the Constitution adopted, but that is now an anachronism. Is there anything that can justify such affirmative action for the inhabitants of low-population states? Yes, affirmative action, to use AOC's phrase for the Electoral College.

This inequality is unusual in international terms. The US stands out among the world’s democracies for having a second chamber that is one of the most powerful and, by far, the least democratic. Roughly half of the world’s countries, including highly economically successful nations, such as Denmark, Iceland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, and Sweden, have only one chamber—elected generally on a one-person, one-vote basis.5 Others—including the UK, Canada, and Germany—have unelected second chambers that are much weaker than the US Senate and perform functions that in relative terms appear mostly advisory. Even those developed countries, such as Australia, that do have powerful second chambers are not marred by as much inequality. While the US senatorial inequality ratio is 67 to 1, the comparable inequality between the most overrepresented and underrepresented territorial units in Australia is only 13 to 1. This gap has been fairly consistent over time; at federation, in 1901, Australia’s senatorial inequality between its least and its most populous state was eight to one, and this inequality has increased only slightly in the years since. Indeed, one study identifies only the second chambers of Brazil, Argentina, and Russia as less evenly represented than the United States’ (Stepan 1999).

Actually, small state senators still don't want to be nobodies. And you still need their votes to amend the Constitution.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Or just reorganize all states.

Although I am kinda partial to a state of San Andreas containing cities of Los Santos, San Fierro and Las Venturas, eh I mean Los Angeles, San Francisco and Las Vegas.

Doesn't look too bad but I can scarce imagine what it will look like after it's been properly and constitutionally gerrymandered.

 

[Politesse]

And when the population shifts again, we just keep inventing new states to accomodate?

 

[AirPoh]

Or just reorganize all states.

Although I am kinda partial to a state of San Andreas containing cities of Los Santos, San Fierro and Las Venturas, eh I mean Los Angeles, San Francisco and Las Vegas.

Not the worst idea, but it's not going to prevent the dilution of the Master Race gene pool. Only some good old fashioned genocide is going to do that.

Or ethnic cleansing, which is one of Trump's biggest accomplishments so far.

 

[RVonse]

The Electoral College is well-known for being imperfectly representative. The Senate has even worse disproportions. Each state gets exactly two Senators regardless of its population. However, the Senate has a lower profile than the Presidency, so its disproportions are not as publicized.

Its disproportions are amplified by its filibuster rule. That rule permits a Senator to talk and talk and talk until either (1) the Senator gets what he/she wants or (2) a "cloture" vote of at least 3/5 of the Senate. In recent decades, Senators have been permitted to introduce holds. These are threats to do the traditional kind of filibuster, and they strike me as much like the fake war of Star Trek TOS: "A Taste of Armageddon". That seemed to me to be extremely farfetched, until I learned of what the filibuster had become.


Democracy in decline: the rise of minority rule - Vox
The U.S. Senate is facing a legitimacy crisis – ThinkProgress
The Senate is so crazily designed it would be literally illegal for a US state to copy it - Vox

One of the more curious aspects of American democracy is that it is literally unconstitutional for states to adopt the same system of government as the nation as a whole. In the case of Reynolds v. Sims in 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that all state legislature districts have to have roughly equal populations, because the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment enshrines a principle of "one man, one vote." That means that an institution like the US Senate, with wildly unequal populations in its various "districts," cannot exist at the state level — at least not anymore.

There is a problem with altering the Senate. In the Constitution, Article V states "... and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Roosevelt Institute: Fixing the Senate discusses the problem, then considers various fixes.

There are a lot more important things to fix before this.

Lpetrich, if you are so worried about voter disenfranchisement, then start by getting our government to represent the people instead of the large corporations. While you are correct that the people of Wyoming are over represented in the Senate (as compared to California) at least the Wyoming senators are still supposedly representing people of the United States who live there. Compared to the disastrous Citizens United decision which makes corporations people, worrying about the electoral college or Senate disproportion is like worrying about the fly that is sitting on the elephants ass. Other than the self serving Democrats, who even cares about that at this point.

Fix the worst problems first. The corporations being over represented in Congress affects both Democrats and Republicans equally.