Democratizing the Senate (II)

[Michael Rouse]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Tarr" <atarr at purdue.edu>
To: <election-methods-list at eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 9:50 PM
Subject: RE: Democratizing the Senate (II)


> Demorep may be a doomsayer, but he has a point here.  Convincing people of
> an extreme change to the way people are elected to the Senate would be a
> tough task.  Moreover, this would require a Constitutional amendment, as
it
> conflicts directly with the 17th Amendment:
>
> "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from
> each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator
> shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the
> qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the
> state legislatures."

If we could only redraw borders after each census so each state had equal
population! (grin) Of course, having one state the size of Manhattan and
another the size of North and South Dakota put together would be a bit odd.

Slightly off-topic, wasn't there an idea a while back about giving
representatives power proportional to the number of votes they received? (If
anyone remembers what the title was and/or when it occured, let me know so I
can look it up again.) If you *could* make states with equal population, you
could have a unicameral legislature where each member has a single state
vote (50%+1 vote needed for bills to pass) and a national strength (50% + 1
Borda score needed for bills to pass). Anyone would be able to vote for the
candidate(s) of their choice -- states would still have their interests
protected even if they voted for someone as divisive as one of the two
Jesse's (Jackson or Helms), but their influence would be less than with a
more moderate candidate.

Michael Rouse
mrouse at cdsnet.net


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