To start off it should be known that I am not delusional enough to think that this is even remotely possible, you aren't going to see 66 votes in the US Senate nor the 38 State legislature approval needed for the Constitutional Amendment but that doesn't stop me from speculating!
Ezra Klein had a short post recently illustrating how ridiculous a notion the makeup of the Senate is, best expressed by how a Senate vote in Wyoming is worth 68 times more than it is in California. Not exactly fair but it was a necessary compromise needed to bring the smaller states (such as Rhode Island & Delaware) into the Union with larger, more populous states (such as Virginia and Massachusetts) who favored the model used in the house (proportional representation). With that said the 3/5 Compromise was stripped out of the Constitution quite some time ago, though it should be noted however it took a costly Civil War to right that injustice.
In a world molded by my hands I would see the Senate abolished and 100 seats added to the US House of Representatives bringing our avg district population down to 484,000 which would move us from 2nd worst representative to only the 3rd worst. I would prefer to see the US add even more seats but an 1:1 consolidation of the two chambers sounds better. The consolidation would obviously have to revolve around the completion of a census year to bring into the fold the proper proportion of House seats per state.
As for the duties of the Senate (treaty approval, judicial & executive nominations, etc.) either the House would assume all of them or the House could nominate per 2-year session a committee, chaired by the Speaker, that's sole duty was to pass or fail these. I think I would prefer to still give the House the full up or down vote for this partially because the more representative of the US population the better. But mostly because I don't think adding these duties would be all that much of a burden to the House, especially if we were to limit the amount of executive positions that need confirmation which are at about 1,400 (and this would be a great excuse to do so).
Some great side effects of this "merger" would be the elimination of the Senate Pro Tempore from the line of succession as well as the annihilation of all Senate rules such as cloture and secret holds. And who knows maybe we would do away with that pesky Electoral College while we are at it?
The main goal here, as I stated above, would be to make elections fairer. But the obvious side effect from this would be the elevation of the Speaker of the House to near the level of the President, if not above the President. I think it would be a good thing, possibly stop, or at least be a great check on the Imperial Presidency and shift the power back in the direction that the founders assumed it would be.
But again, this will never happen.
Ezra Klein had a short post recently illustrating how ridiculous a notion the makeup of the Senate is, best expressed by how a Senate vote in Wyoming is worth 68 times more than it is in California. Not exactly fair but it was a necessary compromise needed to bring the smaller states (such as Rhode Island & Delaware) into the Union with larger, more populous states (such as Virginia and Massachusetts) who favored the model used in the house (proportional representation). With that said the 3/5 Compromise was stripped out of the Constitution quite some time ago, though it should be noted however it took a costly Civil War to right that injustice.
In a world molded by my hands I would see the Senate abolished and 100 seats added to the US House of Representatives bringing our avg district population down to 484,000 which would move us from 2nd worst representative to only the 3rd worst. I would prefer to see the US add even more seats but an 1:1 consolidation of the two chambers sounds better. The consolidation would obviously have to revolve around the completion of a census year to bring into the fold the proper proportion of House seats per state.
As for the duties of the Senate (treaty approval, judicial & executive nominations, etc.) either the House would assume all of them or the House could nominate per 2-year session a committee, chaired by the Speaker, that's sole duty was to pass or fail these. I think I would prefer to still give the House the full up or down vote for this partially because the more representative of the US population the better. But mostly because I don't think adding these duties would be all that much of a burden to the House, especially if we were to limit the amount of executive positions that need confirmation which are at about 1,400 (and this would be a great excuse to do so).
Some great side effects of this "merger" would be the elimination of the Senate Pro Tempore from the line of succession as well as the annihilation of all Senate rules such as cloture and secret holds. And who knows maybe we would do away with that pesky Electoral College while we are at it?
The main goal here, as I stated above, would be to make elections fairer. But the obvious side effect from this would be the elevation of the Speaker of the House to near the level of the President, if not above the President. I think it would be a good thing, possibly stop, or at least be a great check on the Imperial Presidency and shift the power back in the direction that the founders assumed it would be.
But again, this will never happen.
Bummer. What a downer.
ReplyDelete