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
