Should the voting power of individual senators be reduced via constitutional amendment?

There is clearly a power imbalance between the House and the Senate that gives an advantage to less populous states. What might happen if we made senators' votes only count the same as a rep's? Bills can originate in whichever house but ultimately they are voted on by the whole congress at once. So the small states get a slight rebalance of power but well short of tyranny. Any reason that wouldn't work?

  Topic Politics Subtopic Policies
3 Years 2 Answers 2.8k views

Annika Peacock

Reputation Score: 305

Submit An Answer

Answers ( 2 )

 
  1. Doug Massey 1211 Accepted Answer Community Answer

    I'll preface my answer by saying that I'm not a Constitutional scholar. But I've read almost all of Laws and Sausages, so you could say I'm kind of an expert at this stuff. You'd be wrong -- but you could totally say it!

    What you're proposing is basically a switch to a unicameral legislature.  That's been used a lot -- most parliaments around the world effectively function this way.  Heck, Nebraska has one!  So it wouldn't be a groteseque mockery of the concept of democracy. (Has anyone ever called that "demockracy"?  Checking google now . . . yeah, others beat me to it.  Dang.) You could leave some of the roles of the Senate alone (approving judges, impeachment trials, etc.) and keep it as a bicameral system, but since the business of Congress is mostly to pass laws (theoretically!), that function would certainly change.

     

    So the other half of it to consider is whether or not the imbalance of representation is dreadful -- whether Wyoming's 600,000 people having 3 RepreSenators is egregiously bad considering that California's 40,000,000 people having only 55. It's certainly better than it is in the Senate now.  I think it would be reasonable -- certainly no worse than the Electoral College, which is so bad mainly because the states can split their electoral votes.

    Given the primary reason that the entire bicameral system exists in the first place -- the protection of the institution of slavery -- I think it would be fair and reasonable to make the change. In my opinion, the Federal Government exists to serve the people, not the "several States". I think the whole "States are the labratories of democracy" concept is hogwash. The differences that exist mainly have to do with one majority group subjecting its will on some minority group, which is -- to use the technical term -- bullshit.

     

    I doubt this answers your question with any real authority, but if it gets you to read Laws and Sausages, well then, I've already helped make the world a better place. Enjoy!

    UTC 2020-07-18 04:03 PM 0 Comments
  2. The senate was initially created as a concession to get certain states to join the United States.  In the late 18th century, the tradeoff between sovereignty and being part of a new nation with an uncertain future wasn't clear, and as a result certain colonies required an explicit unfair advantage to join the union.

     

    Today we see how monstrously unfair the results are.  Of course, there's little chance today that those states receiving such a dramatically unfair advantage would give it up purely in the name of morality.

     

    If there was a hypothetical option to eliminate the senate entirely, perhaps accompanied by a free option to leave the union for any states that objected, I would vehemently support it.  The senate is a barbarous relic of a world that no longer exists, and it's an embarassment to America that it's lasted as long as it has.

    UTC 2020-07-31 04:44 AM 0 Comments

To answer this question, you must be logged in.

Create an account

Already have an account? Login.

By Signing up, you indicate that you have read and agree to Sage's Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy