Senate Abolishing

Authored by Michael Pate on July 2nd, 2004 at 10:27 PM

Once upon a time, members of the Senate were chosen by state legislatures.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. - Article I

Alexander Hamilton was a supporter of this method.

Various reasons have been suggested, in the course of these papers, to induce a probability that the general government will be better administered than the particular governments; the principal of which reasons are that the extension of the spheres of election will present a greater option, or latitude of choice, to the people; that through the medium of the State legislatures which are select bodies of men, and which are to appoint the members of the national Senate there is reason to expect that this branch will generally be composed with peculiar care and judgment; that these circumstances promise greater knowledge and more extensive information in the national councils, and that they will be less apt to be tainted by the spirit of faction, and more out of the reach of those occasional ill-humors, or temporary prejudices and propensities, which, in smaller societies, frequently contaminate the public councils, beget injustice and oppression of a part of the community, and engender schemes which, though they gratify a momentary inclination or desire, terminate in general distress, dissatisfaction, and disgust. - Federalist 27

In 1913, that method was changed.

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. - Amendment XVII

Now some people want to see it change again.

Well one of the greatest problems with the Senate at this point is the states of Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Iowa and Connecticut have a combined population equal to California’s 34 million people. The population of California has two senators, the people of these other states have 44 senators combined. Basically, if you live in the states with the greatest populations you are politically disenfranchised in the Senate, which means about a 150 million people. Now, at the nation’s founding there were some legitimate reasons for the Senate as a check and balance of power institution for the states. But just as importantly, many of the founders weren’t great small “d” democrats and had great prejudices against popular will. I don’t believe many of these anti-democratic arguments would hold water today. - Joe Costello

I don’t disagree with what Joe said. But unfortunately, he is ignoring a key fact. The issue in 1787 was not just what sort of national government to form. Instead, it was whether a national government should exist at all.

A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages. - Federalist 6

There were rather stronger motivations than having some people concerned about some artificial notion of “disenfranchisement” more than 200 years later. Fortunately, 100 years ago, when people grew unhappy with the method of selecting Senators, the ability to amend the Constitution was available. If a majority of the residents of the other 28 states can be convinced that the Constitution should be amended and work in conjunction with at least 9 of the states Joe cited, the Constitution can be changed again.

I don’t expect to see that happen anytime soon, however. And will be very surprised to see it happen at all.

Links in this entry:

Amendment XVII
Article I
Bring it on, Joe
The Federalist Papers No. 27
The Federalist Papers No. 6

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.patetech.info/cgi-bin/mt/mt-doubleback.cgi/335