Commentary By Ron Beasley
No sane country designing a constitution today would establish an institution like the United States Senate. The fact that we are suffer under it is the best illustration of what political scientists call "path dependance," the ability of bad decisions in the past (recall that James Madison hated the "Great Compromise" that brought us the Senate, which should give reverential "originalists" at least some pause, or, at least, they should explain why the Senate is any more legitimate than the 3/5 Compromise that entrenched the power of slaveowners, the other "Great Compromise" that made the Constitution possible).
~Sandy Levinson
The above is Levinson's reaction to George Packer's must read article on the Senate. The Senate was flawed from the beginning and has only become more so with age. Go read Packer's article for examples of just how dysfunctional the Senate has become. But that's no the real issue - there is probably no institution that is less democratic than the US Senate. The two Senators from Wyoming represent 520, 000 people while the two Senators from California represent 38,200,000 people. Do the math - in the Senate the residents of Wyoming have 73 votes for each vote of the residents of California. A single Senator can put a hold on any nomination and it effectively now takes 60 Senators to pass any legislation. These things by themselves are undemocratic but it is multiplied by two Senators per state.
The Senate was a bad idea from the beginning and has only gotten worse. What we need is a Constitutional amendment that does away with the Senate and gives each state two at large Super Representatives that serve for six years. The Senate is just too broken to be fixed. Yes, I realize that there will be times that those in charge will not share my ideology but that is better than a dysfunctional government. Bad legislation will result in punishment at the polls.
How about we run 'em through every six months til we find the good ones. Then we decide how long they stay. If they screw up - they're out. Aren't we the government?
ReplyDeleteActually I've always thought we should just draft our politicians. Sure, we will get some idiots but we get idiots now - think John Boehner. Of course we will gets some crooks - if they weren't crooks when they were elected it doesn't take long for them to qualify - think, the list is too long.
ReplyDeleteFYI, drafting politicians is more properly known as Demarchy:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy
You'd need to add some kind of accountability mechanism to keep moral hazard under control in this kind of system. Professional politicians can be kept somewhat honest in a living democracy (the US doesn't count) because they generally want to win the next election. Leaders selected by lot with no chance of returning to office, however, have no incentive not to enrich themselves at society's expense and leave the mess to their successors.
(Yes, this is also an argument in favor of maximum age limits and against term limits in democracies. But that's a different argument.)