Len’s Letter #5 How to get the US Senate its democratic revolution

Equity

A chart. The ratio of the largest state by population v the smallest state. Second largest state by population v the send smallest state. And so on. For the 2010 census and the 1790 census.

How can we make the United States Senate more democratic? People from California, Texas, Florida, and New York are underrepresented in the Senate. People from other large states, too.

The Constitution is clear. As amended by the 17th amendment, it says: 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

Each state has two Senators. Each Senator has one vote.

Doing it the hard way.

Changing the number of Senators each state has could make representation of the people of various states fairer. That change would require an amendment to the US Constitution.

1) An amendment must be proposed: Either by a two-thirds vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate OR through a convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures.

2) An amendment must be ratified either by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions held by three-fourths of the states.

Conditions. Congress can set a time limit by which ratifications must occur. Particularly relevant to this conversation is a constitutional condition: “no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

Are there easier ways to achieve greater democracy in the Senate?

Could the Senate weight each Senator’s vote? Weight a California Senator’s vote as worth 70 times a Wyoming Senators? Thirty-five times a Wyoming Senators? Seven times a Wyoming Senators?

Could weighting Senators votes be achieved simply be changing the Senate’s rules? Weighting votes as a way to democratize the Senate without a constitutional amendment. Just as the filibuster gives particular strength to a minority of Senators.

Would a change in Senate rules to weight votes mean that a smaller state is “deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate” without its consent?

If so, How would consent be obtained? A vote by a state legislature? Some combination of sticks and carrots? Make it simpler? I can recall receiving a check or two that, upon its endorsement, I accepted the terms of an agreement. Could certain federal payments to the states be designed to achieve the same effect?

Changing the Senate’s voting rules would not be easy. Finding an acceptableway to get state consent might be hard. Changing rules seems easier then achieving a constitutional amendment. What’s more, changing the Senate’s voting rules, in and of itself, would have no implications for other institutions.

Are there other ways to achieve greater democracy in the Senate without amending the constitution?

Here is a thought: A typical state has just under 5 million people. California has almost 40 million people. Texas almost 30 million. Florida more than 20 million. New York almost 20 million. California could be eight typically sized states; Texas six, Florida and New York 4. Admission of a state requires aact of Congress. That is how Hawaii became a state; Alaska; Oklahoma; Kentucky; Vermont.

Venture capitalist Tim Draper has been trying to divide California into three states, or six states. He argues California is too big to govern. He may not like Democrats supermajority in California’s House and Senate. Draper is focused on changing California. Changing California the way he proposes changes the country. California’s two Senators become six with three states, twelve with six states, sixteen with eight states.

Would California opt to become eight states? Would Texas opt to become six states? When Texas was admitted the option to divide into multiple states was explicit. Would Florida and New York opt to become four states? How about other large states – Illinois, Pennsylvania, Georgia? Would the additional representation be worth the change?

Making six states out of California would require an act of Congress as well as action by the state. California’s change would need to be contingent on Congressional approval. The House would need to approve. The Senate. The President would need to sign the act. This would not be hard politically. Easier than amending the Constitution, though.

How about a regional government for California’s eight states? Keeping a kind of California government might offend Tim Draper. A regional arrangement just might allow Californians to have their cake and eat it too; keep their government, their identity, and have greater representation in the Senate.

Would New York or Texas or Florida or Illinois or Georgia be interested in doing the same? Would it be an incentive that this change is also a substantial fix to the Electoral College problem?

 Models in the world?

The European Union Parliament offers animperfect model. It is supranational and doesn’t have the same authority as a national legislature. The EU has weighted representation. The weighting is not systematic. It does intentionally allow smaller countries to have disproportionately more votes.

France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and (should it somehow figure out a way to remain) the United Kingdom have roughly equivalent representation. Each of those larger countries have about the same number of people for each representative to the European Union. Smaller countries have roughly half or a third the number of people per representative. Include Austria and Sweden in that group; Belgium and Slovenia. A very few countries have many fewer people per representative. Cyprus and Luxembourg are examples.

Let’s have a United States Senate at least as representative of our country as the United States Senate was in 1796 or 1800.

Doing it the hard way. Amending the constitution

Remember Gene Healy. For the Cato Institute? He wants the US to go back to having state legislatures appoint Senators. What if the constitutional amendment also created a Senate in which the number of Senators appointed by each state reflected the population of each state? Just asking.

Writing these Letters is fun. As I’ve said before, I invite submissions. The purpose of my writing; the purpose of the Notes has been to elect Democrats. Through 2017 and 2018 special elections were clues to the direction of the electorate for November, 2018. Here we go again.

The Virginia House of Delegates has 100 members. After the November general election, there were 50 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and one vacancy. The Delegate from HD 28, a Republican, was elected to Congress. The special election to replace him was on December 18.

Had the Democrat won, the House of Delegates would have been evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. That would have been an unlikely outcome. Democrats did not contest the vacant seat in 2017. Hillary Clinton lost in HD 28 61% to 37% in 2016. Democrat Christian Worth lost the special election 59 – 40. A 19 point loss compared to a 24 point loss is good, but not overwhelming encouragement.

We should watch to see how Jennifer Boysko does in the Virginia SD 33 special election on January 8, 2019. She too is running to fill a seat vacated because the incumbent was elected to Congress. This incumbent was a Democrat. We need to keep the seat to retain 29 seats out of 40. If you wanted to send Jennifer Boysko a little help, it wouldn’t hurt. Her website is https://www.jenniferboysko.com/