The U.S. Senate

Abolish or Reform

The U.S. Senate was originally placed in the Constitution of 1787 to assure the smaller states that they would not be bullied by the larger. It also allowed this non-elected body to act as a block to any democratic “extremes” of the lower house. Until 1913, state legislatures appointed senators. But the 17^th Amendment established their direct election by popular vote. (State legislatures would be permitted pass to governors the power to make temporary appointments until a special election could be held.) This was ostensibly to make the Senate a more democratic body but it established as well a grossly unequal electoral base for Senate election, with each state – populous or mostly empty – getting two senators each.

So the US Senate – while not as bad as the British House of Lords – is second only to the Supreme Court in requiring change. And just like the Supreme Court, any major change to the Senate would need Constitutional amendment, so unlikely any time soon. The “mostly empty states” would resist such amendment. (Vermont and Wyoming have less population than the District of Columbia, with Alaska not far behind. Eighteen states have a smaller population than Puerto Rico. Neither the District or PR have any voting representation in either Congressional chamber.)

Still, one can imagine either abolishing the Senate, shifting its power over approving Cabinet or judicial appointments to the House, or changing how seats are apportioned between the states. This latter could be interesting.

Three groups of states could differ, on the basis of population, with the number of Senate seats they have. The twenty most populous states would get three seats each (60 in total). The next 20 would get two (40 in total) with the remaining ten having just one. This would require adding ten to the Senate making its total membership 110. To determine which are which by population, the decadal census could regulate the rankings which would be used in the next year to distribute the seats for senators to be elected to five year terms. With the next census, everything would be refigured. An amendment setting this in motion might even pass muster as only 38 states would need to approve it.

Some may still find the Senate – with its idiosyncratic rules such as the filibuster – worth keeping as a break on the kind of runaway majority rule we are experiencing now as it provides some leverage to the minority. This may be the best we can expect without the hope of a Constitutional change.

Next the presidency.