Amend the Constitution to reform the U.S. Senate

While the U.S. Supreme Court grapples with the question of ending partisan gerrymandering of House seats, little attention is paid to the truly undemocratic Senate where each state, regardless of population, has two senators, the result of the Connecticut Compromise between the large states which wanted equal representation in Congress based on population, and the smaller states that worried about losing autonomy to the larger states. The undemocratic nature of the Senate offended many of the framers but it was necessary in order to obtain ratification of the Constituion by the states. It was a compromise of political expediency that has long since outlived its purpose.

America has developed from a rural agrarian society in 1787 to an urban population overwhelmingly concentrated in large metropolitan cities. This has resulted in the United States now being a non-majoritarian democracy, in which small rural states weild a disproportionate share of political power over the majority living in more populous states.

Population Map

E.J. Dionne Jr., Norman J. Ornstein and Thomas E. Mann,the authors of “One Nation After Trump: A Guide for the Perplexed, the Disillusioned, the Desperate, and the Not-Yet-Deported,” explain this dynamic in an op-ed today, Why the majority keeps losing on guns:

Why does our political system make it impossible even to consider solutions to gun violence? After the massacre in Las Vegas that has so far taken nearly 60 lives and left more than 500 injured, the first reaction of the many politicians who carry water for the gun lobby was to declare it “premature” to discuss measures to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

The “premature” word echoed from President Trump’s White House on down, and those who used it were really saying that Congress would never enact even modest efforts to prevent mass shootings. This is damning evidence of the stranglehold that far-right lobbies have on today’s Republicans, who extol law and order except when maintaining it requires confronting the National Rifle Association.

But something else is at work here. As we argue in our book, “One Nation After Trump,” the United States is now a non-majoritarian democracy. If that sounds like a contradiction in terms, that’s because it is. Claims that our republic is democratic are undermined by a system that vastly overrepresents the interests of rural areas and small states. This leaves the large share of Americans in metropolitan areas with limited influence over national policy. Nowhere is the imbalance more dramatic or destructive than on the issue of gun control.

Our fellow citizens overwhelmingly reject the idea that we should do nothing and let the killings continue. Majorities in both parties favor universal background checks, a ban on assault-style weapons, and measures to prevent the mentally ill and those on no-fly lists from buying guns.

Yet nothing happens.

The non-majoritarian nature of our institutions was brought home in 2013. After the Sandy Hook slaughter, the Senate voted 54 to 46 in favor of a background-checks amendment crafted by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). Those 54 votes were not enough to overcome a filibuster, which the GOP regularly abused during the Obama years. Worse, since most large-state senators voted for Manchin-Toomey, the 54 “yes” votes came from lawmakers representing 63 percent of the population. Their will was foiled by those who speak for just 37 percent of us.

Ending the filibuster would not solve the problem; in some cases, it might aggravate it. As The Post’s Philip Bump has noted, if all 50 senators from the 25 smallest states voted for a bill and Vice President Pence cast his lot with them, senators representing just 16 percent of Americans could overrule those representing 84 percent.

And this problem will only deepen. David Birdsell, a Baruch College political scientist, has calculated that by 2040, 70 percent of Americans will live in 15 states — and be represented by only 30 of the 100 senators.

In the House, mischievously drawn district lines vastly distort the preferences of those who cast ballots. After the 2010 Census, the GOP controlled the redrawing of congressional boundaries in most key states. The result? The Brennan Center for Justice concluded that Republicans derived a net benefit of at least 16 seats from biased boundaries, about two-thirds of their current House margin.

The electoral college, meanwhile, is increasingly out of line with the popular vote. In raw terms, Trump had the largest popular-vote deficit of any electoral college winner. It was the second time in just five elections that the two were at odds. Here again, the failure of our institutions to account for the movement to metropolitan areas is the culprit. In 1960, 63 percent of Americans lived in metros; by 2010, 84 percent did.

Voter-suppression efforts and the disenfranchisement of former felons in many states further skew electoral outcomes, as does the power of money in politics.

Constitutionally, representation in the Senate is difficult to change. But this week, the Supreme Court heard a case on which it could (and should) rule to make gerrymandering much harder. A renewed Voting Rights Act and universal voter registration could restore access to the ballot box to those who have lost it. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is trying to move us toward the popular election of the president. And our campaign finance system badly needs repair.

Our paralysis on guns reflects a looming legitimacy crisis in our system. In the short run, advocates of sane gun laws should keep up the pressure, particularly in election showdowns involving candidates who resist any steps to make our country safer. In the long run, we need reforms to make majority rule a reality.

Bret Stephens at the New York Times today writes in his column Repeal the Second Amendment:

In fact, the more closely one looks at what passes for “common sense” gun laws, the more feckless they appear. Americans who claim to be outraged by gun crimes should want to do something more than tinker at the margins of a legal regime that most of the developed world rightly considers nuts. They should want to change it fundamentally and permanently.

There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment.

Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either.

Repealing the Second Amendment is a non-starter in this country, a true Mission Impossible. But most Americans will understand the need to reform the U.S. Senate to make it more democratically representative of the country in which we live today, and to end the non-majoritarian distortion of our democracy resulting from the long since irrelevant Connecticut Compromise.

If we are going to amend the Constitution, let’s begin with making the U.S. Senate more democratic, based upon apportionment by population. And yes, this would mean increasing the size of the U.S. Senate. The contours of the amendment to be offered should be the subject of robust public debate.

8 thoughts on “Amend the Constitution to reform the U.S. Senate”

  1. repeal the second amendment? change the senate? this is why liberal elitists are view with contempt out side new york city and hollywood. since 2000 the election of president by popular vote has passed in 11 states who’s electors will vote for popular vote winner. since the 2016 election debacle I have not seen another state pass popular vote for president. this does not need constitutional amendment. democrats have not tried to put it on the ballot here. republicans focus on lower taxes on the rich and voter suppression to get it. liberal elitists are all over the map with identity politics with each pleading their special causes. popular vote for president first and stopping voter suppression to make state government pass it into law. otherwise your worthless dilettantes.

  2. I saw the Bret Stephens column earlier today and made it halfway through the read, and then I remembered that Bret Stephens is an idiot.

  3. Repealing the 2nd amendment is low hanging fruit compared to changing the makeup of the Senate. But please devote considerable time and effort to these causes, which will distract you from promoting more dangerous liberal (Oops, I meant progressive) causes.

  4. “…senators representing just 16 percent of Americans could overrule those representing 84 percent.”

    And thank God they could. I cannot imagine what life in the United States wold be like if we had to live under the tyranny of the majority. Given that the majority tend to be urban dwellers with a distinctly leftist bent, we would be forced to live with all the stupidity and self orientation so common in the cities. The Founders may have made a compromise to get the Constitution ratified, but their compromise – like most of what they did setting up this country – was sheer genius. It works they way they intended it to work and it keeps the Country focused on the big picture rather than stomping on the rights of people who happen to live in a rural environment.

    “There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment.”

    That is a perfect example of the repugnant ideas that would become mainstream if it weren’t for the way the Founders set things up.

    What is at work here is an attempt to begin destroying the Constitution because liberal urban dwellers find it out of date and inconvenient. Of course, these are the same people who are not too keen on freedom of speech, freedom of association and religious freedom. In fact, the entire Bill of Rights gets in the way of how urbanites want to live their lives.

    “let’s begin with making the U.S. Senate more democratic, based upon apportionment by population.”

    Then what would be the point of having the Senate? If it is going to just be another House of Representatives, then why have it? The Senate has it’s own position to fill in the government and without that specialized power, it may as well not exist.

    This system we use today is outstanding and should not be revised to placate the political hunger of urbanites. We were fortunate to have had the Founders with their intellect and brilliance. It is impossible to imagine what today’s “deep thinkers” would design if they had the power to rewrite the Constitution to meet the transitory needs of political hacks.

    But of course, the Founders knew this and they made it difficult to change the Constitution because of the capricious and transitory needs of any generation. They were trying to build a country with a vision; not some petty people with a focus only on the present.

      • “…the other 84% have ways to show their displeasure over being usurped.”

        That is true, Captain, and I have no objection to them doing so. I just don’t think a Constitutional change is a good idea. We have numerous ways to work things out in this Country that work out well for everyone…all within the framework of the Constitution as it now exists.

  5. It’s been over 50 years since I had to take the Constitution test in Illinois, so many thanks for the refresher on the Connecticut Compromise!

Comments are closed.