A friend of mine who I discuss political ideas with suggested that I write about an absolutely crazy idea that I have. There is no way that this could happen… but if it could, it would be very interesting.
When the original government was created, the Legistlative branch was created containing two different bodies: the House and the Senate. As they did with all branches of the government, the founding fathers placed checks and balances on these bodies (just as the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches had checks and balances on each other). As originally formed, these two bodies were set up representing different constituents and for a law to pass, it had to pass both of the bodies. This naturally formed a set of checks on the types of laws that could pass.
Originally, the House was set up to represent the people. Members of the House were elected by the people through the democratic election process. Members of the Senate however were NOT. The Senate did not represent the people. The Senate represented the States. The original founding fathers had a long-running debate between two government formats. One side favored a strong central (Federal) government and weaker State governments. The other side favored strong State governments and a weaker Federal government. In the end, the strong Federal government group largely triumphed, but some checks were still set in place. One of these was the largely ignored tenth amendment (which says that powers not explicitly given to the Federal government by the constitution are reserved for the States or the people). The more important check was the method of appointing Senators where the States (rather than the people) were given control of one half of the Legislative branch. In the constitution, it says:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof
In other words, Senators were appointed by the state rather than voted on in public elections. In addition, the House members were elected every two years, which meant that they were held accountable to the current political beliefs of the people, whereas the Senate were appointed every six years which in theory allowed them to take a longer-term view of things from the perspective of the States.
Sadly, in 1913, the seventeenth amendment was passed which changed the way Senators were selected from State appointment to public election. This effectively removed most of the checks and balances in the Legislative branch (because both the House and the Senate now are elected by the people) and at the same time, totally eliminated the State’s voice in the Federal government. Of all of the constitutional amendments, this is the single most damaging to the United States.
So, one thing that I have advocated for in my blog would be the removal of the 17th amendment with the appointment of the Senators reverting to the State.
However, for a while now, I have had another idea… a slightly crazy idea… of an alternate way to appoint Senators. This comes largely from my idea that we need everyone to have a voice in the government: even the minorities, even the extremes, even the ones that are completely opposing to our own. I’ve talked about this here: https://blog.sullybeck.com/index.php/2020/10/19/end-the-hatred/
What if, instead of assigning Senate seats by State, they were assigned by party. Every voter is registered with a party affiliation. Most identify as either Republican or Democrat, but many are registered third party or independent. What if the Republicans were assigned a number of seats based on the percentage of registered voters in their party. Same with Democrats. So if 30.6% of registered voters are registered as Democrat, the Democrats receive 30 seats. Any other party that has more than 1% of the registered voters also receives seats. All remaining seats are assigned by Independent voters and those who identify as a party that does not have at least 1% of the registered voters.
According to ballotpedia, as of March 2024, 38.28% of registered voters identify as Democrats, 30.35% identify as Republican, 27.67% identify as independent, and 3.70% identify as some other party. By this, I would assign 38 of the 100 Senate seats to the Democratic party, 27 to the Republican party, and the remaining 35 to people who did not identify as either Republican or Democrat. Ballotpedia did not break down the 3.70% who identified as a third party, so it might be that one or two of the seats would be assigned to one of the third parties.
At election time, voters who registered as Republican would vote among potential candidates for any vacant Republican seats. Democratic voters would vote to fill any vacant Democrat seats. And the rest of us would vote to fill the seats among candidates which represented those who do not consider themselves solely Republican or Democrat. The Senators might live in any state. However, they themselves would be registered with the appropriate party affiliation.
The resulting Senate, though elected by popular vote, would be far different, and serve a drastically different set of contituents than the House, which would automatically restore many of the checks and balances that have been lost. In addition, it would allow the often marginalized minority groups a voice in the government that they absolutely should have. Having a legitimate voice might serve to quiet some of the violent protests which come, very often, from people who feel they have no other voice in which to express their concerns.
Obviously, there are many details to work out here (especially since the voter registration would certainly change quickly if this were implemented)… but I feel that the principle is valid and an implementation could be created.
I am under no belief that such a change could actually be made in today’s environment. This change would require a significant constitutional amendment, and would serve to limit the voice of both of the main parties (who completely control both the House and Senate), so the idea that they would actually pass the necessary amendment is absurd.
That’s unfortunate because some change which allows people to have a voice, especially a voice that does not fall in line with one of the two main parties, is critically needed in our country.
