Sun May 8, 2022, 12:08 AM
in2herbs (2,932 posts)
IS ADDING MORE SENATORS A SOLUTION WORTH CONSIDERING?
I am sure this idea has appeared here and elsewhere, but I have not read about it, so I’m putting it out here: INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SENATORS based on the population figures in the official census conducted every ten years to allocate members to the House of Representatives.
There’s an excellent article in the Atlantic by Eric W. Orts which includes a pdf discussing a three-part path for how the Senate can increase the number of senators under the Voting Rights Act. No Constitutional amendment needed. According to Mr. Orts: “Congress would adopt the Rule of One Hundred scheme as a statute; let’s call it the Senate Reform Act. Because it’s legislation rather than an amendment, Article V would—arguably—not apply.” Here are a few excerpts from the article and its pdf attachment. The article appeared in the Atlantic and was written by Eric W. Orts. The link to the Atlantic article is: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/heres-how-fix-senate/579172/ The pdf within the Atlantic article is at this link: https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp- content/uploads/2018/12/Senate.Democracy.12.7.18.final_.pdf Here are some excerpts from the pdf: “The unequal representation created by the original one state, two senators rule violates principles of voting rights found in the Voting Rights Amendments of the Constitution (including the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments).” ***** “Congress, acting within its proper scope of constitutional authority under the Voting Rights Amendments, should enact a statute reforming the allocation of senators to the states. The legislation abolishes the rule of one state, two senators. It allocates senators to the states in a manner that both respects the original commitment to federalism (allocating at least one senator to each state) and the rights of American citizens to participate on an equal basis in their political democracy (allocating a greater number of senators to more populous states).” ******* END. My Comment: The pdf sets out a three-part process to accomplish this and argues that the Electoral College would better represent the population by adding more Senators. This is the proposition I am putting my support to for creating the changes we need to protect US.
|
48 replies, 1955 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
in2herbs | May 2022 | OP |
Polybius | May 2022 | #1 | |
PufPuf23 | May 2022 | #14 | |
in2herbs | May 2022 | #18 | |
TygrBright | May 2022 | #2 | |
InAbLuEsTaTe | May 2022 | #5 | |
AnyFunctioningAdult | May 2022 | #41 | |
InAbLuEsTaTe | May 2022 | #42 | |
Hoyt | May 2022 | #3 | |
Demsrule86 | May 2022 | #8 | |
in2herbs | May 2022 | #19 | |
Hoyt | May 2022 | #26 | |
former9thward | May 2022 | #4 | |
in2herbs | May 2022 | #20 | |
former9thward | May 2022 | #40 | |
roamer65 | May 2022 | #6 | |
in2herbs | May 2022 | #22 | |
Orangepeel | May 2022 | #7 | |
sarisataka | May 2022 | #9 | |
Novara | May 2022 | #16 | |
in2herbs | May 2022 | #23 | |
Jedi Guy | May 2022 | #34 | |
hardluck | May 2022 | #35 | |
MarineCombatEngineer | May 2022 | #43 | |
JI7 | May 2022 | #10 | |
jmowreader | May 2022 | #11 | |
in2herbs | May 2022 | #24 | |
jmowreader | May 2022 | #46 | |
mwooldri | May 2022 | #12 | |
unblock | May 2022 | #13 | |
in2herbs | May 2022 | #29 | |
muriel_volestrangler | May 2022 | #44 | |
unblock | May 2022 | #47 | |
kentuck | May 2022 | #15 | |
sarisataka | May 2022 | #17 | |
kentuck | May 2022 | #21 | |
sarisataka | May 2022 | #27 | |
in2herbs | May 2022 | #28 | |
LiberatedUSA | May 2022 | #30 | |
in2herbs | May 2022 | #25 | |
Crepuscular | May 2022 | #37 | |
unblock | May 2022 | #48 | |
LiberatedUSA | May 2022 | #31 | |
in2herbs | May 2022 | #32 | |
sarisataka | May 2022 | #36 | |
Emile | May 2022 | #33 | |
Celerity | May 2022 | #38 | |
Emile | May 2022 | #39 | |
Celerity | May 2022 | #45 |
Response to in2herbs (Original post)
Sun May 8, 2022, 12:11 AM
Polybius (13,461 posts)
1. How so without a Constitutional Amendment?
Adding a state is the only way to did it without the Constitutional Amendment.
|
Response to Polybius (Reply #1)
Sun May 8, 2022, 02:44 AM
PufPuf23 (8,170 posts)
14. Is a Constitutional Amendment required to split a State?
Or perhaps keeping one State but multiple jurisdictions for Senators?
Probably the Constitutional Amendment would be need for either approach. Idea is to split large population States into multiple States, each with two Senators. California would be 3 States and so on with other large population States. In a sense that would be adding 2 States. The alternative idea is to keep the House the same and not split the State but make Senate jurisdictions within Staes of large population. Instead of 3 State, California would have 3 Senate jurisdictions and 6 Senators. |
Response to Polybius (Reply #1)
Sun May 8, 2022, 09:43 AM
in2herbs (2,932 posts)
18. Under this scenario, no state(s) is added and no Constitutional amendment is
required. The Senate gets its authority under the Voting Rights Act.
|
Response to in2herbs (Original post)
Sun May 8, 2022, 12:20 AM
TygrBright (20,441 posts)
2. Statehood for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia would add more Senators. n/t
Response to TygrBright (Reply #2)
Sun May 8, 2022, 12:24 AM
InAbLuEsTaTe (24,001 posts)
5. Is P. R. on board with this? Of course, I'd support the idea wholeheartedly.
Response to InAbLuEsTaTe (Reply #5)
Sun May 8, 2022, 11:32 AM
AnyFunctioningAdult (192 posts)
41. Polling seems to indicate a pretty even split.
PR residents do not pay Federal income taxes today and becoming a state would change that. Also, PR is not a shoe in for electing two Democrats every time whereas DC pretty much would be.
|
Response to AnyFunctioningAdult (Reply #41)
Sun May 8, 2022, 11:53 AM
InAbLuEsTaTe (24,001 posts)
42. Yeah, not sure then bout PR...DC fo sho tho. I say ram it thru then & federalize abortion rights.
Response to in2herbs (Original post)
Sun May 8, 2022, 12:20 AM
Hoyt (54,770 posts)
3. Who knows what we can do long-term, but we better get out vote in Nov and 2024.
Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)
Sun May 8, 2022, 12:34 AM
Demsrule86 (67,223 posts)
8. That is where we have to start...without winning the midterm, nothing can be done.
Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)
Sun May 8, 2022, 09:45 AM
in2herbs (2,932 posts)
19. People say this GOTV as if its the solution. The states are so gerrymandered that
voting alone is not the solution. Beto said yesterday at his rally in TX that TX is the worst state for voting rights and voting restrictions.
|
Response to in2herbs (Reply #19)
Sun May 8, 2022, 09:54 AM
Hoyt (54,770 posts)
26. The laws aren't going to change between now and November. GOTV.
Response to in2herbs (Original post)
Sun May 8, 2022, 12:23 AM
former9thward (30,014 posts)
4. The composition of the Senate is given in Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution.
It can't be changed by legislation.
|
Response to former9thward (Reply #4)
Sun May 8, 2022, 09:47 AM
in2herbs (2,932 posts)
20. The article and pdf cites reasons why this is not cast in stone. nt
Response to in2herbs (Reply #20)
Sun May 8, 2022, 11:13 AM
former9thward (30,014 posts)
40. Yes, and the article is wrong.
The Constitution is not a gimmick.
|
Response to in2herbs (Original post)
Sun May 8, 2022, 12:27 AM
roamer65 (36,178 posts)
6. Requires 38 states and 2/3 of the House and Senate to ratify such an amendment.
No way in hell will the smaller and taker states will give up the gravy train they have in disproportionate senate representation.
We will see the republic fall apart before it happens…and it will fall apart if Roe is overturned. |
Response to roamer65 (Reply #6)
Sun May 8, 2022, 09:48 AM
in2herbs (2,932 posts)
22. So do nothing?? With majority Ds in the senate this couldl be passed just like any
other law. Read the article and pdf.
|
Response to in2herbs (Original post)
Sun May 8, 2022, 12:30 AM
Orangepeel (13,895 posts)
7. No. But increasing the number of house reps is
|
Response to in2herbs (Original post)
Sun May 8, 2022, 12:53 AM
sarisataka (16,470 posts)
9. The article spends a lot of words
Trying to justify a case that Article V can be worked around because states have already given consent- a very shaky premise at best.
What isn't addressed is Article I which says 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.
It is hard to see how his logic overrides the clear verbiage of how many Senators each state gets. |
Response to sarisataka (Reply #9)
Sun May 8, 2022, 09:29 AM
Novara (5,118 posts)
16. Exactly
The NUMBER of senators won't change.
The key is to elect more Democrats. Work on the races where Dems have a chance to unseat an R. Could you even imagine how much we could get done with a clear Senate majority? One to override the filibuster, if they decide to keep it? |
Response to Novara (Reply #16)
Sun May 8, 2022, 09:51 AM
in2herbs (2,932 posts)
23. Of course I can imagine how much we could get done with a clear Senate majority, but
gerrymandering has prevented that in the past and will continue to prevent that in the future. There are states where more people have voted D for senators but because of gerrymandering it goes to the Rs.
In the past, TRMS has had several shows dedicated to how gerrymandering has and is preventing D representation even when Ds receive majority votes. |
Response to in2herbs (Reply #23)
Sun May 8, 2022, 10:26 AM
Jedi Guy (2,878 posts)
34. Gerrymandering has nothing to do with the Senate.
Gerrymandering is drawing a district to give one party an advantage by including their voters and excluding the other side's voters.
Votes for Senators are cast by residents of an entire state without regard to Congressional districts. For gerrymandering to impact a Senate race, state lines would have to be redrawn. That's clearly not happening from year to year. |
Response to in2herbs (Reply #23)
Sun May 8, 2022, 10:28 AM
hardluck (607 posts)
35. How do you gerrymand a state?
Nobody is changing the state lines.
|
Response to in2herbs (Reply #23)
Sun May 8, 2022, 12:06 PM
MarineCombatEngineer (10,934 posts)
43. The whole premise of gerrymandering collapses on the fact that the Senate
isn't gerrymandered, the residents of the state vote for senators, unlike representatives from numerous districts within the state.
Jeez, don't school's teach civics 101 anymore? |
Response to in2herbs (Original post)
Sun May 8, 2022, 12:58 AM
JI7 (88,323 posts)
10. All of these things require support from people that want to take away rights
|
Response to in2herbs (Original post)
Sun May 8, 2022, 01:26 AM
jmowreader (49,915 posts)
11. It would be easier to reset the number of Representatives because that's governed by a law
The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 became outdated when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the union.
My recommendation is to set the number of representatives each state has by dividing its population RIGHT NOW by the population of Wyoming, and figuring out some way to lock that in so there can never be redistricting. |
Response to jmowreader (Reply #11)
Sun May 8, 2022, 09:52 AM
in2herbs (2,932 posts)
24. Good idea -- approach the issue via House of Reps. nt
Response to in2herbs (Reply #24)
Sun May 8, 2022, 01:17 PM
jmowreader (49,915 posts)
46. The red states might go for it, too
Consider Idaho. We have three times Wyoming’s population and two representatives. This law would increase our say in Congress by 50 percent.
|
Response to in2herbs (Original post)
Sun May 8, 2022, 01:43 AM
mwooldri (10,222 posts)
12. Not necessarily.
If the US took its cue from England, one could argue that the Senate could be a pure revising chamber, where the House of Representatives can use a "Parliament Act" to push through legislation without Senate approval. Would probably require a constitutional amendment.
|
Response to in2herbs (Original post)
Sun May 8, 2022, 02:34 AM
unblock (51,611 posts)
13. this is a bizarre fantasy. it basically imagines a very left-wing supreme court radically
re-reading certain constitutional amendments already on the books as implying that the states have already agreed to something that clearly nobody was thinking about at the time.
while i like the result of a senate that's more representative of the people, the path suggested for getting there is bizarre and would ultimately be highly damaging to our notion of the rule of law and the endurance of the constitution. |
Response to unblock (Reply #13)
Sun May 8, 2022, 09:58 AM
in2herbs (2,932 posts)
29. You'd have to be more specific in your reasoning for there to be a response. nt
Response to in2herbs (Reply #29)
Sun May 8, 2022, 12:06 PM
muriel_volestrangler (100,082 posts)
44. The paper imagines a Supreme Court completely unlike recent ones
From a political theory as well as a public perception standpoint, it would
be odd for nine unelected justices to strike down a congressional statute designed to enhance democratic representation, including fair representation of people of color, based on an interpretation of the original text of a 200- year-old document written of white men, by white men, and, at least in large part, for white men (many of them slaveholders) No, it wouldn't be "odd"; it would be what everyone expects them to do. Especially for the present one, but quite probably for all Supreme Courts throughout history. The author reckons that the "equal protection of the laws" promised to all citizens by the 14th Amendment overrides the explicit language of the Constitution that 2 Senators will come from each state (and that the states' right to representation can't be overridden even by amendment - "no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate" ). This is a bit of silliness by an author trying to get noticed. It ignores the reality of the USA, and is of no practical use to anyone. |
Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #44)
Sun May 8, 2022, 04:20 PM
unblock (51,611 posts)
47. Thank you. Better explanation than mine.
![]() |
Response to in2herbs (Original post)
Sun May 8, 2022, 09:25 AM
kentuck (110,461 posts)
15. It is interesting that California has about 40 million people and only two Senators...
...but North Dakota and South Dakota have about 1 1/2 million people combined but have four Senators. How is that democratic?
|
Response to kentuck (Reply #15)
Sun May 8, 2022, 09:32 AM
sarisataka (16,470 posts)
17. California-2 Senators
N Dakota- 2 Senators
S Dakota- 2 Senators 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. |
Response to sarisataka (Reply #17)
Sun May 8, 2022, 09:47 AM
kentuck (110,461 posts)
21. Why not two states of California - North California and South California?
Why do you think they made two states out of the Dakotas?
|
Response to kentuck (Reply #21)
Sun May 8, 2022, 09:55 AM
sarisataka (16,470 posts)
27. The Dakotas were admitted as two states
From a territory, which is very different from splitting an existing state in half.
Yes, it was done to add Republican votes to the Senate however since it was done over 130 years ago when Republicans were the "progressive" party I don't believe it was part of any long range plan coming to fruition now. California could be split into two states per the Constitution. It requires approval of Congress and the state Legislature |
Response to kentuck (Reply #21)
Sun May 8, 2022, 09:56 AM
in2herbs (2,932 posts)
28. I'm not in favor of that but even if it was done I don't see the increase equaling
the same level of representatives that Wyoming, Montana, etc., enjoy via their population.
|
Response to kentuck (Reply #21)
LiberatedUSA This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to kentuck (Reply #15)
Sun May 8, 2022, 09:53 AM
in2herbs (2,932 posts)
25. It's obviously not. And the Atlantic article put for a solution, a solution that does not
require a Constitutional amendment.
|
Response to kentuck (Reply #15)
Sun May 8, 2022, 10:34 AM
Crepuscular (1,051 posts)
37. ...
The Senate was never intended to proportionally represent the population of each state, it was intended to represent the interests of each state collectively, hence an equal number of Senators per state, regardless of population or geographic size. That is why they were originally elected by State Legislative bodies instead of by direct popular election. The point of a bicameral legislature is to have two deliberative bodies which act differently and provide different functions. By basing the Senate on proportional representation, you remove a primary difference between the two, which would leave little point in having two bodies.
|
Response to Crepuscular (Reply #37)
Sun May 8, 2022, 04:28 PM
unblock (51,611 posts)
48. Just to be clear, slavery had a lot to do with that structure
The slave states feared too much democracy would take away their evil institution.
We learn all about "checks and balance" between the branches of government, but the senate really was a check on the house. Had congress been more representative from the outset, slavery likely would ended a few decades earlier than it did. |
Response to in2herbs (Original post)
Sun May 8, 2022, 10:03 AM
LiberatedUSA (1,666 posts)
31. If republicans...
…decided to jam pack one of their states, would we be ok with them demanding more Senators for that state or is this concept only good for us and California?
|
Response to LiberatedUSA (Reply #31)
Sun May 8, 2022, 10:20 AM
in2herbs (2,932 posts)
32. Senators would be added but the voters would be the deciders as to whether they would
be Ds or Rs or even Is.
Not addressing you particularly, but it is very disappointing to recognize how many DUers are posting responses without reading the article and pdf, and one can tell they haven't read the article because their arguments are addressed in the article and pdf. |
Response to in2herbs (Reply #32)
Sun May 8, 2022, 10:32 AM
sarisataka (16,470 posts)
36. The article makes the argument
That we can ignore what is clearly spelled out in the Constitution by applying spurious logic.
Much like the shenanigans used to deny blacks their votes in the post Civil War south any Supreme Court, whether conservative or liberal, would throw out legislation to change the Constitutional make up of the Senate. And rightfully so. |
Response to in2herbs (Original post)
Sun May 8, 2022, 10:25 AM
Emile (16,546 posts)
33. We haven't made a new state since I was a kid in 1959.
It's past time some of our US territories become new states!
|
Response to in2herbs (Original post)
Sun May 8, 2022, 10:35 AM
Celerity (39,241 posts)
38. multiple Dems are against adding more states and/or also adding more SCOTUS justices so none of this
is likely to happen
|
Response to Emile (Reply #39)
Sun May 8, 2022, 12:33 PM
Celerity (39,241 posts)
45. because they're institutionalists for the most part, and we'd have to do a filibuster carveout
or a Constitutional Amendment, the latter according to at least Manchin (of course
![]() The 4 Dem caucus members who have not supported DC statehood so far Angus King (ME): Not currently a co-sponsor, hasn’t supported similar legislation in the past Kyrsten Sinema (AZ):Not currently a co-sponsor, hasn’t supported similar legislation in the past Joe Manchin (WV):Not currently a co-sponsor, hasn’t supported similar legislation in the past Mark Kelly (AZ): Not currently a co-sponsor, hasn’t supported similar legislation in the past Th last co-sponsor (Shaheen) signed on a year ago, so zero movement Manchin says he doesn’t support D.C. statehood bill, dealing advocates a major blow https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/manchin-dc-statehood-amendment/2021/04/30/39fab2ae-a9dd-11eb-8d25-7b30e74923ea_story.html |