
The Path to Give California 12 Senators, and Vermont Just One - korethr
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/heres-how-fix-senate/579172/
======
mr_cyborg
In my opinion, thinking of each state as a small nation unto itself is the
best way to see the value of the senate in its current form.

I find this thought pattern to be helpful because the state has all the
government powers not given to the federal government, and not found to be
contrary to the constitution. The tenth amendment guarantees this - "The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people."

Each state, as a small nation, has its own interests that need preserving
outside those of the United States at large, and it makes sense that the
senate acts as a check on the interests of large, populous states over smaller
ones when it comes to these.

Having lived in several states, I've found that differences in values and
culture inform general opinion of the federal government. In my opinion, this
article sounds like it was written by someone who views the United States
federal government as one that should have a large role in the every day lives
of citizens, and my feedback to them is that they should consider whether or
not they would like it if a growing state with different values than their own
suddenly had disproportionate representation federally.

~~~
SllX
I agree with you, because this is more or less what the US is, and in some
ways, was intended to be, and in other ways, not intended to be.

If you split the government along Foreign and Domestic policy, the Federal
government represents more foreign policy matters with the Senate serving as
the outlet for the States to have a modicum of say, and the States generally
handle more local and domestic policy matters, except where Congress has
reserved power.

The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing, and while what we have is a
compromise, there was clearly vision behind the drafting of the constitution,
more vision than 99% of armchair historians can muster. In order to scale
democracy beyond the level of a city-State and have it survive, they
instituted some Anti-Democratic institutions. The Senate is one of these
institutions.

Most of those who would like to revise the Constituon lose sight of the fact
that democracy does not scale well without some judicious compromises. The
very nature of the Constitution and Federalism is counter to democracy. The
Senate is counter to democracy. The Supreme Court is counter to democracy. The
Presidency is counter to democracy.

If you asked me, I would say we could do better, but we’re not going to do
better by cutting down the pillars of society and seeing what we can build
from the rubble. The States are as integral to the United States as the
Federal Government is to the States.

~~~
tdb7893
I get the states are an integral part of the US but I'm unclear on why the
Senate needs equal representation for all states except for the fact that the
founders made it that way.

~~~
SllX
Because if one State could dominate Congress entirely the policies of the
country would be disproportionately shaped around that one State.

The State is an entity that matters, according to the Constitution, because
the Union could not have existed without the States, therefore the Senate is
the chamber of Congress which represents the interests of the _States_ rather
than the _people_ which is the function of the House of Representatives.

The mechanism for selecting Senators may have changed, but not the function of
the Senate.

Or to put it this way, why is it that the United Nations is designed to give
one country one vote in the General Assembly and not proportionate
representation according to each nation’s population? It is the same principle
in play. From the lenses of the Founding Fathers, the Union was an agreement
between States and People and so Congress represents States and People. The
United Nations is an agreement between Nation-States and so it represents
Nation-States, no single Nation’s and no single State’s interests should
override the interests of all the other Nations or all the other States.

You can disagree with that principle, certainly, but I think it is necessary
for the Union to have _both_ chambers of Congress. There is no function for a
Senate that is proportionate to each State’s population to serve, and you
would be better served by abolishing the Senate altogether along with the
representation of the States’ interests in Congress and maintaining the House
of Representatives as the sole remaining chamber of Congress.

------
juliangoldsmith
It's interesting to see that this article doesn't mention the House of
Representatives at all.

The entire purpose of the Senate is to balance the power of the House, to
mitigate states with large populations overpowering states with smaller
populations.

~~~
rmah
The entire purpose of the Senate was not balance the power of the House, it
was to provide _states_ with representation in the federal government. To such
end, in the original constitution state governments chose senators -- because
the senators represented the individual states -- not the people of those
states.

Then the 17th Amendment changed all that and made senators elected by popular
votes just like the house members. This, IMO, eliminated the primary reason
for having a Senate at all (to represent states). It now simply (poorly)
duplicates the same purpose of the House (to represent the people).

~~~
mr_cyborg
One could make the argument that the senators still represent the state,
because they represent everyone in the state, whereas a representative only
represents their district.

~~~
burfog
The difference shows up in things like unfunded mandates. An appointed senate
would resist demanding that states pay money. Voting for such a thing would
likely get the senator rejected by the state government, preventing another
term. In general, appointed senators were a force to keep government smaller.

------
peapicker
It has always been this imbalanced. That is the point... the Senate balances
out the House (which is apportioned by population already) to ensure that
large population areas can't force policy and laws that are onerous on small
(population) states. In other words, this is not a bug, it's a feature.

~~~
jhayward
The population disparity is much, much greater now than when the compromise
was designed and approved, is is accelerating.

When 15% of the population can control the most powerful house of Congress
there is a problem.

~~~
mr_cyborg
With the senate, it's important to frame thoughts not as a percentage of the
population, but as a percentage of the states that make up the United States.

I would say that if 15% of the population could control the house of
representatives, then there would be something wrong.

------
tynpeddler
This argument seems very convoluted. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like
Sovereign Citizen level of nuttiness.

The whole crux of the argument seems to boil down to the idea that using a
statute to change apportionment in the senate avoids the Article V clause that
prevents a constitutional amendment from changing senate apportionment without
the consent of every state.

A statute would avoid Article V, it won't avoid Article 1 Section 3, which
states that each state gets 2 senators. His "Senate Reform Act" would be
unconstitutional without ever involving Article V. All his other arguments
seem totally irrelevant; trying to interpret a mess of other amendments as
somehow consenting to a loss of equal suffrage is ridiculous. Even if you
tried to interpret the 14th amendment as changing the apportionment of
senators (a novel interpretation to say the least), it would be clearly
unconstitutional as per Article V which specifically forbids any amendment
from changing equal suffrage in the senate without the consent of that state.

So either you try to change senate apportionment with a statute and violate
Article 1 Section 3, or you try to change it with an amendment and run afoul
of Article V.

The only argument in this entire article that makes sense is their idea of
amending Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 2. That can be changed, maybe that's
where they should focus their efforts.

But if you really hate the senate that much, your best option is to amend away
all their powers and turn them into a purely ceremonial body.

------
AnimalMuppet
The problem is, this bill would have to pass the Senate - the _current_
Senate. That seems... improbable. Even with a Democratic win in 2020, it seems
improbable without invoking the nuclear option. I'm not that deep into
politics, so I'm not sure whether the nuclear option _can_ be used on a bill
like the proposed one. I'm also not clear whether small-state senators would
vote for such a bill, even if they are Democrats.

~~~
AvocadoPanic
No.

The Senate was created via legislation, you can't legislate it away.

You'd have to amend the constitution.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
The article was talking about a bill that (theoretically) would restructure
the Senate without having to amend the Constitution. Even were that possible
(about which I have doubts), my comment still stands.

------
astrodust
While splitting up large states is one way, what's to stop already small
states from splitting up out of spite?

What happens when North Wyoming, South Wyoming, West Wyoming, East Wyoming,
Northwest Wyoming, Northeast Wyoming are created?

~~~
Apocryphon
A lot of name collisions.

------
danieltillett
Wouldn't the better solution just be to get rid of the senate. The senate is
there to represent the states and if they are not being represented then why
keep it?

~~~
goatlover
How would Congress go about getting rid of the Senate? Also, the Senate is
representing the states. What people are upset about is how the Senate doesn’t
represent the population of states relative to one another. That’s the House
of Representatives, but given recent politics by the party in control of the
senate, people in states like California feel like their will is being
override by small state senators.

------
ddoolin
Serious question: How do you enforce the will of the majority at the same time
as protecting the interests of the minority? It seems to me that this only
really allows the minority to set the agenda in most scenarios and the
majority can only enforce their will in a "complete control" situation.

EDIT:

Why do states need representations in Congress at all? Aren't states arbitrary
divisions anyway, as it relates to policy? Given that, why should we protect
smaller states? I would like to know a/the rational basis for that, given that
much policy is still left up to the state government so that they may govern
their populace effectively as needed in their specific geographical region.
Would it be better to protect them in the way of ensuring their ability to
make their own laws as-needed isn't overridden by a proportionally-represented
Congress? The requirement of equal representation of states (arbitrary) is
causing unequal representation of people (what states are made of), which is
what government is truly here for.

Equal representation in Senate = whoever has the highest (or at least "most
correct as it relates to our map") geographical distribution has the ability
to control legislative outcomes. But geographical distribution does not mean
majority, and that's where we're at today. This then causes unequal
representation of the people in presidential elections via the electoral
college and thus further entrenches the unequal representation of the people.

I'd have to say that I disagree with the author's solution and that I really
only see one choice, which is to merge (i.e. get rid of) the Senate with the
House. The author's solution is merely the same thing by a different name. We
should also abolish the electoral college, as this has the same effect as a
Senate-type body on a democracy.

~~~
trylist
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that the current system is
set up to enforce the will of the minority and ignore the majority.

~~~
ddoolin
I agree with you, although I don't know if that was the intention from the
outset, it's the unintended outcome nonetheless. Their arbitrary nature +
requirement for equal representation creates situations that run contrary to
democratic ideals, or at least that of majority rule.

------
ggchappell
Sure, popular election of senators is at least a little problematic. But maybe
what we really want is a return to the original model, where members of the
House are elected by the people, while senators are chosen by state
legislatures.

------
davidf18
The current system is a check that prevents individual states from dominating
legislation in Congress. Why would anyone want that except for the very
populous states?

The top 6 states (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois &
Pennsylvania effectively tied) have almost half the population and thus could
dominate Congress without input from the other 44 states.

The author comes from Pennsylvania, and so this article should be seen as
nothing but self-serving.

But a poll of equal number of citizens from each state would never approve
such a measure.

~~~
TomVDB
> The author comes from Pennsylvania, and so this article should be seen as
> nothing but self-serving.

Of course it's self serving.

But it's undeniable that the current situation isn't fair. One where the vote
of a rancher in Wyoming with whom I have absolutely nothing in common
politically has orders of magnitude more weight than mine. And the difference
isn't only in the senate either.

CA: population per senator: 19M

WY: population per senator: 280k

CA: population per electoral vote: 719k

WY: population per electoral vote: 192k

CA: population per house seat: 746k

WY: population per house seat: 577k

It's indeed true that the situation for senators is by design. One could
weakly argue that the situation for the house isn't too bad. But how do you
defend a 4x ratio for electoral votes?

It seems to me that the only solution to mitigate this imbalance is to start
dialing back the responsibilities of the federal government. (Which I'm not in
favor of at all, but what other option is there?)

~~~
masonic

      CA: population per senator: 19M
    

For 24 years, California had _no change_ in Senators.

Now, how many major pieces of legislation authored by _either_ can your
average Californian name?

------
fallingfrog
This provision was put into place to preserve the power of the landowning
class against what were then referred to as “the mob”, meaning everyone else.
It did its job quite well, but it is intentionally anti-democratic and does
need to be fixed.

