Comment by emn13 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by emn13 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Regardless of how senators are picked, it's deeply problematic if representation is so divorced from population size. Alternatively, if we insist on retaining a fixed number of senators per state we could strip the senate of essentially all of its powers (perhaps becoming more advisory in role, with only the capability to temporarily filibuster house legislation); but that strikes me as being even more unachievable.

But personally, I don't think appointed senators would practically help much.

The point of federalism isn't to achieve some ivory tower ideal of centuries past, but to have real value today. Some of the value we can still retain is flexibility: essentially letting states go their own way for many laws and regulations. That benefit of federalism is quite real, and imposes no requirements that the senate needs to have appointed senators vs. elected, nor that the number of senators be fixed (vs. scale with population size). I'm pretty sure we can mitigate the deadlock, lack of accountability, and undemocratic representation issues with today's congress+executive while also eating our federalist cake.

To be clear: I don't think of this is worth pursuing as political reform; it's entirely unachievable due to the US's virtually unamendable constitution (basically only populist amendments are ever achievable, never this stuff; states need to large agree, after all - and pure political power play makes that utterly impossible).

A proportionally represented Senate is just a duplicate of the House. It would have no reason to exist.

The whole point of having two separate bodies is that it requires two groups that are chosen in a different manner to both agree that a piece of legislation is acceptable.

And also the United States form a federal republic. It makes sense for the states qua states to have a voice in the federal government (just like it makes sense for the states of Europe to have a voice in the European Union government).

If anything, I would push the principle downwards further, and argue that state senators should represent counties. Indeed, this was the case until the execrably unconstitutional Reynolds v. Sims decision in 1964, which forced states to apportion state senate seats by population.

We would probably be a much happier union if our politics were mostly about those things most of us can agree on, rather that all about the things that we disagree on. Our politics is all scissor statements, now.

The senate is elected on a slower cycle, and simply by nature of its differing powers you might get different dynamics. You see that happen in some other democracies, at least.

Also: just because the senate should be proportionally scaled doesn't mean that proportionality needs to follow the same rules as the house's: e.g. one of them might use winner-takes-all per district approach, another a ranked choice, or one might use districts, and another be a proportional representation of the whole state.

Finally, while a slight variation in the representation is likely "nice to have" I don't actually think it's all that critical. The idea makes sense: you want a check on power, but in practice it fails at that goal today, because power is not wielded by senate vs. house, but instead by republicans vs. democrats (sure, in the exceptional curent case of a precisely divided senate where every vote counts there's a slight possibility that intra-party disagreements mean that some senators sometimes switch sides, but even now it's going to be rare). But it's really important to realize that the senate does not exercise any kind of legislative check on the house in the normal case that congress is either clearly divided or clearly in the same hands. When house and senate are in the same hands, it's the political party that makes the decisions and members generally stay in line; and conversely when it's divided it's the political parties that do the horse-trading. There's no protection or moderation offered by the current system; if anything it makes for even more extreme legislation - because now it's either deadlock or go!-go!-go! - and when congress is in gung-ho mode, they don't have the luxury of careful consideration, and so likely produce less moderate legislation.

The current split is a failure; not a feature.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com