|
In his book "A More Perfect Constitution" author Larry Sabato lays out many ideas for reformation of our consitition to better serve the needs of our modern union. On of the earliest in the book is "Reform the Senate" based on the debacles we have seen recently it has been on my mind.
Sabato's Points and Ideas (paraphrasing heavily)
A couple of good things about the Senate as originally designed
- The Senate represents semi-sovereign states. The U.S. is a federation of semi-independent states. We seem to like it that way.
- Protects minority rights and against the "Tyranny of the Majority".
While these concepts are good, we are a much different country than we were in the early years.
Back then the largest state (VA) was only 12x the size of the DE, the smallest. Today (2004) CA is 70x the size of WY! Small states have too much power. Theoretically the 21 smallest, representing just 11.2% of the population could filibuster important legislation.
Idea 1:
Give the 10 largest states two more Senate seats each. The next 15 largest get one additional seat each.
Benefits
- This new 135 member Senate can better serve a population that as grown 66% since the 100 member senate was established in 1960 (think constituent service).
- Senority rules help small states stay relevant (think VT Sen. Patrick Lahey)
- If Electoral College is not reformed (one of his other ideas) the expanded Senate is more representative of the population at large and not as skewed to the small population states.
- Perhaps an enlarged Senate would be more apt to allow DC's 550,000 residents to have a representation in the form of at least one Senate seat. (There are more people living in DC than there are in the state of WY! Where is the Democracy in that?)
- Although It does not address filibuster abuse directly. By increasing the number of Senators representing the the larger states in theory the majority would have more power to control debate.
Idea 2:
Allow Former Presidents and Vice Presidents to Serve as "National Senators"
Benefits/Arguments for
- We the people have invested heavily in these people and as the only folks elected as a nation, the hope is they would bring a broader national "For-the-good-of-the-County" perspective than one based on state identification.
- Seats would not be elected and be held as long as the occupant would like to serve.
- Books/Memoirs could be written but some limits on activities would need be in place.
- Free to accept or decline the role within four years of leaving office.
- Can't come back once you leave.
- It's doubtful there would ever be more that 10 potential "National Senators" and parties would likely be balanced over time
Later in the book he suggests that the entire Senate be elected every 6 years (along with the President, you'll have to read that part on your own.) This is to allow the President to have a reasonable chance of implementing the programs he/she campaigned on.
I fully recommend the book to anyone who likes to think of things from the systemic perspective. It is full of (23 to be exact) non-partisan "systems engineering" solutions to the problems that keep our country bogged down in theatrics rather than implementing solutions to solve our biggest problems.
So... what do you think of these ideas to reform the Senate? Would they help us to move important legislation forward? Crazy talk? Anything Sebato overlooked in these bold ideas?
|
