[EM] Democratizing the Senate

[Alex Small]

When laying down the procedure for amendments, the Constitution stipulates
that no state may be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate without
its consent.  This means we can't go to a system where some states have
more Senators than others.

HOWEVER, it never stipulates that only the states shall have suffrage in
the Senate.  For instance, the VP has suffrage in the Senate (albeit only
during ties).  If he were elected directly rather than by the EC then the
people would have limited suffrage in the Senate via the VP.  So, it is
possible for at least one voting member of the Senate to be chosen by the
people as a whole, provided that each state also sends a delegation and
that each state delegation is of equal size.

Would it be a priori unconstitutional for the people as a whole to elect 50
Senators by some PR method (say 16 or 17 every two years to maintain
gradual turnover), and for the states to elect the other 50?  One objection
is that the people of California, being roughly 12% of the population,
could elect about 12 of the Senators chosen by PR.  That seems to violate
the Constitution.

Here's where Mr. Hager's proposal of a few weeks ago--election of Senators
by state legislatures--can actually become a tool for democracy:

Draw a distinction between the people of the United States and the
institution of the State of California.  Forfeit some amount of democracy
by letting each state legislature pick a single Senator, and in exchange
receive an arguably larger amount of democracy in return:  A Senate in
which half of the members are chosen by PR.

Before we get any prophecies of doom, civil war, or new Vanilla Ice CD's
(what could be more apocalyptic than that? ;), hear me out:  Throughout the
world it's common for upper chambers to be appointed by state or provincial
governments.  The Netherlands, India, France, and Germany come to mind.
Most of those countries compensate for that by using PR methods in electing
the other branch.

I know that some people support election of Senators by state legislatures
as a means for giving more power to states.  Looking at the nations which
take such measures I wouldn't classify any of them as having limited
federal governments.  I don't think electing half of the Senate by state
legislatures will bring about any radical changes of the national agenda.
However, if it serves as a loophole allowing 50% of the Senate to be chosen
by some PR method then I see it as an acceptable trade-off.

Ultimately, I think it could even produce a very balanced Congressional
design if combined with Approval Voting for the House:

-One chamber composed of centrists (either lukewarm moderates or bold ideas
respected by multiple factions) who are close to their constituents (in
terms of miles).  This chamber has rapid turnover to reflect an ever-
shifting political center.
-One chamber where every significant faction gets a seat at the table, and
where the state governments also get a seat since they often act as
partners in federal programs.  This house has slower turnover, so members
can afford to take risks and see if their convictions are borne out over
time.

What do people think of this?  Forget for the moment that even if it's
Constitutional it would be nearly impossible to line up 290
Representatives, 67 Senators and 38 state legislatures in favor of it.

Alex

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em