Abolish the Senate; don’t just reform it

Share

• Yahoo! Buzz
• MySpace
• del.icio.us
• Reddit

• LinkedIn
• Fark
• StumbleUpon
• Newsvine

|

Recommend (16)

Print

Email

Alert

By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Led by a few freshman Democrats, the Senate will open its new session Wednesday by voting on the most far-reaching reform of its rules in a generation, reining in a few of the most abusive practices that have allowed a small minority to subvert the will of the majority.

The reforms of the filibuster rule are welcome, but they do not go far enough to bring democracy to Washington. Even under the new rules, a small group of senators will be able to use the filibuster to delay or block any nomination or legislation, regardless of its merit or its support among the people.

In fact, the Senate would remain a profoundly undemocratic institution even if the filibuster were eliminated entirely, and if every issue were decided on a timely up-or-down vote. The Senate was established on the flawed premise that the people cannot be trusted to govern themselves. No mere reform of its rules can change its aristocratic character.

The Senate ought to be abolished, but Article V of the Constitution seems to forbid that. If we cannot abolish it, we should chip away at its ability to subvert our will.

Because senators represent states, and not people, it is one of our few political institutions that does not honor the principle that each citizen has equal political rights. In the Senate, some are more equal than others.

The people of Wyoming make up 0.2% of the population but have 2% of the senators. The people of California constitute 12% of the population but also have 2% of the senators. Residents of the District of Columbia have no senators at all. There is nothing fair or just about such a system. It’s a relic of history.

Theoretically, it’s possible for the Senate — and, therefore the government — to be controlled by 51 senators from the 26 smallest states, which have just 17% of the population. One-sixth of us can control the rest. Under the filibuster rules that require 60 votes in the Senate to pass any law or confirm any nomination, we’re allowing 10% to govern the other 90%. And because it takes a two-thirds majority to ratify treaties or amend the Constitution, just 7% of the people can elect enough senators to block a treaty or an amendment.

A majority of the country, meanwhile, is represented by just 18 senators.

The result of this is predictable. The residents of small states extract concessions from the rest of us, getting far more than their fair share of federal dollars and political attention. Does anyone think ethanol subsidies, for instance, could survive without the extra influence that small rural states enjoy in the Senate and in presidential politics? Does anyone think slavery and Jim Crow would have lasted as long as they did without the Senate?

Add Comment › · Recommend (16) · Post:
Alert Email Print