Making the US Senate More Representative

[Loren Pechtel]

In principle, term limits may seem like a terrible idea. In practice, it would be nice to find some way to counter the huge power of incumbency, and the corrupt symbiosis (and "revolving-door") connecting legislators to corporations and lobbyists.

Term limits would actually increase the revolving door problem because it would provide them a career after leaving office. Otherwise you have the problem that being in office would be a substantial disruption to one's career, thus favoring people who didn't have a worthwhile career in the first place.

 

[Elixir]

In principle, term limits may seem like a terrible idea. In practice, it would be nice to find some way to counter the huge power of incumbency, and the corrupt symbiosis (and "revolving-door") connecting legislators to corporations and lobbyists.

Term limits would actually increase the revolving door problem because it would provide them a career after leaving office. Otherwise you have the problem that being in office would be a substantial disruption to one's career, thus favoring people who didn't have a worthwhile career in the first place.

I would recommend forbidding all speculative investment transactions (buying or selling stocks, calls, puts etc.) while in office.
I think most of the current crop would rush for the door like the place was on fire.

 

[Tigers!]

 Demography of the United Kingdom

[TABLE="class: grid"]
[TR]
[TD]What
[/TD]
[TD]Population
[/TD]
[TD]Fraction
[/TD]
[TD]Has parl
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]England
[/TD]
[TD]56.6 M
[/TD]
[TD]84.3%
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Scotland
[/TD]
[TD]5.5 M
[/TD]
[TD]8.2%
[/TD]
[TD]X
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Wales
[/TD]
[TD]3.2 M
[/TD]
[TD]4.7%
[/TD]
[TD]X
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]N Ireland
[/TD]
[TD]1.9 M
[/TD]
[TD]2.8%
[/TD]
[TD]X
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Total
[/TD]
[TD]67.1 M
[/TD]
[TD]100%
[/TD]
[TD]X
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

This table puzzles me.
If England has no parliament then what does that magnificent, old, yellow sandstone building along the Thames with Big Ben house?

(Yes I know that we could come up with facetious comments but i'd rather not be facetious)

 

[lpetrich]

 Demography of the United Kingdom

(trimmed down) The UK, Scotland, Wales, and NI have Parliaments, but England doesn't.

This table puzzles me.
If England has no parliament then what does that magnificent, old, yellow sandstone building along the Thames with Big Ben house?

That building houses the Parliament of the entire United Kingdom, and not just England.

The UK has four countries in it, much like US or AU states: England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

 

[Swammerdami]

This table puzzles me.
If England has no parliament then what does that magnificent, old, yellow sandstone building along the Thames with Big Ben house?

(Yes I know that we could come up with facetious comments but i'd rather not be facetious)

Consider a U.S.A. analog of this situation. Each of the U.S. states has a legislature which passes state laws, and also is subject to Congress-passed laws, with Congress reporting to the natonwide electorate.

Suppose that only 49 of the states had a legislature and California — like Englsnd — was unique in having no legislature specific to it. Instead the state laws for California were imposed by Congress.

This unfair situation, with the electorate specific to California not having exclusive jurisdiction over state laws, is analogous to England's situation. (It's disguised somewhat since such a large percentage of U.K. population is in England, but the principle is the same.)

 

[Bomb#20]

Consider a U.S.A. analog of this situation. Each of the U.S. states has a legislature which passes state laws, and also is subject to Congress-passed laws, with Congress reporting to the natonwide electorate.

Suppose that only 49 of the states had a legislature and California — like Englsnd — was unique in having no legislature specific to it. Instead the state laws for California were imposed by Congress.

This unfair situation, with the electorate specific to California not having exclusive jurisdiction over state laws, is analogous to England's situation. (It's disguised somewhat since such a large percentage of U.K. population is in England, but the principle is the same.)

I.e., it would be analogous and it would be the same principle if the U.S. had 40 million non-Californians and 290 million Californians and 800 California senators. The principle underlying the British system is that countries get devolved parliaments in order to alleviate their problem of being pushed around by the English. England doesn't have a problem with being pushed around by the English.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In principle, term limits may seem like a terrible idea. In practice, it would be nice to find some way to counter the huge power of incumbency, and the corrupt symbiosis (and "revolving-door") connecting legislators to corporations and lobbyists.

Term limits would actually increase the revolving door problem because it would provide them a career after leaving office. Otherwise you have the problem that being in office would be a substantial disruption to one's career, thus favoring people who didn't have a worthwhile career in the first place.

I would recommend forbidding all speculative investment transactions (buying or selling stocks, calls, puts etc.) while in office.
I think most of the current crop would rush for the door like the place was on fire.

That would be pretty harsh in some circumstances.

What I would like to see is that investment is limited to:

1) General index funds--top x stocks in one of the major exchanges.

2) Home, vacation home.

Other things that can be held, but voluntary changes are not permitted other than by rules you wrote before taking office:

3) Shares in a company that you are a major shareholder.

4) Real estate.

 

[Jayjay]

Here is how MMP works. The legislature has two kinds of seats, district seats and at-large seats. Each voter has two votes, one for a district-seat candidate for one's district, and one for a political party. The district seats are filled with the winning district-seat candidates and the at-large seats are filled by party candidates to make the entire legislature have a party composition that is proportional to the votes for each party. From the tradition of parties proposing lists of candidates to seat, the at-large seats are often called list seats. Some places add extra at-large seats ("overhang seats") to make the overall results proportional if necessary.

This sounds like a way to get the worst aspects of both systems. The FPTP district seats and Duverger's Law ensure that the Republicans and Democrats will maintain their two-party cartel on legislation, while the list seats ensure that the two parties get their party bosses into the legislature whether or not the voters want to primary them out.

This. The party-based votes are a horrible idea because it ensures government is about working for the parties, not for the people.

One way around this is to have open lists, where a personal vote decides the position of candidates on the list.

I still would not give up on (open) party list systems. Political parties form anyway, even if you try to keep the legislation agnostic about their existence. Like any harmful substances, political parties are safer if they are well regulated.

 

[lpetrich]

To compare different nations, check on:

•  List of electoral systems by country
•  List of countries by system of government
•  Democracy Index
•  List of countries by Fragile States Index
•  Human Development Index

How do they do? Note that members of these categories often overlap in score values.

On top is the Nordic countries: Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland.

Next in line are the Anglo British Commonwealth countries, the UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

About equal are the Central Germanic countries, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

A bit behind, though still overlapping, are the best of eastern Asia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, and the best of Latin America, Costa Rica, Uruguay, and Chile.

Somewhat behind are the Western ex-Roman countries, France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy. A bit behind them are the best of the Eastern European countries, like Estonia and Czechia.

Belgium is not as good as one might expect, because it has a long-running conflict between its Flemish and Walloon populations.


Where is the United States in this list? Not far above the others, as certain chest-thumping American superpatriots might have you believe, but well below the top ones, comparable to the likes of France and Italy, and worse than South Korea and Uruguay.

 

[Tigers!]

To compare different nations, check on:

•  List of electoral systems by country
•  List of countries by system of government
•  Democracy Index
•  List of countries by Fragile States Index
•  Human Development Index

How do they do? Note that members of these categories often overlap in score values.

On top is the Nordic countries: Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland.

Next in line are the Anglo British Commonwealth countries, the UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

About equal are the Central Germanic countries, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

A bit behind, though still overlapping, are the best of eastern Asia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, and the best of Latin America, Costa Rica, Uruguay, and Chile.

Somewhat behind are the Western ex-Roman countries, France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy. A bit behind them are the best of the Eastern European countries, like Estonia and Czechia.

Belgium is not as good as one might expect, because it has a long-running conflict between its Flemish and Walloon populations.


Where is the United States in this list? Not far above the others, as certain chest-thumping American superpatriots might have you believe, but well below the top ones, comparable to the likes of France and Italy, and worse than South Korea and Uruguay.

Perhaps you Yanks should not have revolted in 1776? You might be higher up the list with the Commonwealth countries.

 

[lpetrich]

Where is the United States in this list? Not far above the others, as certain chest-thumping American superpatriots might have you believe, but well below the top ones, comparable to the likes of France and Italy, and worse than South Korea and Uruguay.

Perhaps you Yanks should not have revolted in 1776? You might be higher up the list with the Commonwealth countries.

I doubt it. Most of the Commonwealth countries are lower than the US in these indices, and if the US had not become independent, it would likely have become a "problem child" of the Commonwealth, much like South Africa.

Member countries | The Commonwealth - The British Commonwealth is nearly all the former British Empire.

 

[lpetrich]

 Party-list proportional representation

•  Closed list - only the parties choose who gets seated
•  Open list - voters can have at least some influence on who gets seated

Returning to these scores, there is an interesting composite portrait of the top scorers in democracy and social development.

• Parliamentary system: the legislature is supreme, and it chooses the acting executive leaders
• Party-list proportional representation with open lists
• Weak or absent upper chamber of the legislature
• Mostly ceremonial head of state, either a monarch or a president

The US fails all four of those criteria, and it is among the highest-ranked nations with a strong president.

In the Economist magazine's Democracy Index, Norway is at the tippy top, and it fits the profile perfectly.

New Zealand has mixed-member proportional representation, and it is at #4. Germany, the prototype of such a system, is at #14.

Canada has a first-post-the-post, single-member-district lower house and an upper house that does not do much, and it is at #5.

Taiwan has a semi-presidential system, a hybrid between a strong-president system and a parliamentary system, and it is at #11. France, the prototype of such a system is at, #24.

Switzerland has a parliamentary system with no separate head of state. It is at #12.

The best nation with a strong president is Uruguay, at #15. The next ones are Chile, at #17, Costa Rica, at #18, and South Korea, at #23. The United States is at #25.

 

[lpetrich]

Turning to the Fragile States Index, one has to count backwards, subtracting the ranks from 180.

The champion is Finland, and it fits the profile perfectly.

Of countries with mixed-member PR, New Zealand is at #4 and Germany at #14.

Canada is the champion of countries with FPTP single-member-district legislatures, at #9.

Switzerland, a nation with a parliamentary system and no separate head of state, is at #7.

The United Arab Emirates is the highest-scoring non-democracy at #29, with Qatar at #35.

Portugal is the highest nation with a semi-presidential system, at #16, followed by France at #21 and Lithuania at #25.

South Korea is the highest nation with a strong-president system, at #21, followed by Uruguay at #22, Costa Rica at #31, and Chile at #36. The US is at #37.

 

[WAB]

Turning to the Fragile States Index, one has to count backwards, subtracting the ranks from 180.

The champion is Finland, and it fits the profile perfectly.

Of countries with mixed-member PR, New Zealand is at #4 and Germany at #14.

Canada is the champion of countries with FPTP single-member-district legislatures, at #9.

Switzerland, a nation with a parliamentary system and no separate head of state, is at #7.

The United Arab Emirates is the highest-scoring non-democracy at #29, with Qatar at #35.

Portugal is the highest nation with a semi-presidential system, at #16, followed by France at #21 and Lithuania at #25.

South Korea is the highest nation with a strong-president system, at #21, followed by Uruguay at #22, Costa Rica at #31, and Chile at #36. The US is at #37.

Where does Petoria fit in? I didn't see it anywhere. I checked, but

Show

/

 

[Bomb#20]

Perhaps you Yanks should not have revolted in 1776? You might be higher up the list with the Commonwealth countries.

Perhaps you British Imperials shouldn't have taxed us without representation. (And yes, I realize you couldn't very well be expected to put up with thirteen of us sitting next to you lot in Parliament...

Show

...since we were revolting.

)

 

[WAB]

Perhaps you Yanks should not have revolted in 1776? You might be higher up the list with the Commonwealth countries.

Perhaps you British Imperials shouldn't have taxed us without representation. (And yes, I realize you couldn't very well be expected to put up with thirteen of us sitting next to you lot in Parliament...

Show

...since we were revolting.

)

I do notice that *a lot of* people *seem to* leave off that bit I bolded. It's *almost/kinda but not exactly* like the people who say "Ignorance is bliss", when that is torn completely out of context and actually undermines the original meaning of it in the (awesome) poem it was borrowed from. NOT that those people are ignorant. "Ignorance is bliss" has been in common parlance for, what, centuries?

Anyway...

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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).

What Part of the "United STATES of America" Don't You Understand?

The majority of people wouldn't want to be stuck in an undesirable state just because it has the majority of the power. Population-based representation would be a way to prevent people from leaving.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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

Sadistic statists prefer that we change our name to "United Urban Cesspools of America."

 

[Worldtraveller]

Want to make the senate representative?

Make it a draft.

 

[lpetrich]

What Part of the "United STATES of America" Don't You Understand?

Maybe even go the way of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. That will get rid of the Federal Government once and for all.

The majority of people wouldn't want to be stuck in an undesirable state just because it has the majority of the power. Population-based representation would be a way to prevent people from leaving.

Like how?

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

Sadistic statists prefer that we change our name to "United Urban Cesspools of America."

Why not visit a city some time? Even if you have to put a clothespin on your nose.