Sean CastenTo quote a Senator - and friend: "I've got a plan for that!" Thread: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2023/us-senate-bias-white-rural-voters/
1. Our founders didn't come up with the Great Compromise of 1789 out of some highfalutin idea about the best form of representative government. They did it because it was the only way the individual states would agree to be United.
2. Think about it: there is no theory of political efficiency that opines that some set of arbitrary geographic borders should have representation independent of population. And we know this is a really dumb idea for two reasons:
3. First, while many mimicked our bicameral, constitutional government, NONE have copied the geographic representation of the Senate. (No state legislature provides equal representation to counties, after all!)
4. Second, EVEN OUR FOUNDERS knew this was a dumb idea. You can tell because in Article V (which details the process by which you can amend the constitution) they expressly prohibit amendments that would weaken the relative power of the states in the Senate.
5. In other words, the folks who refused to join the Union unless they got over-represented also understood that this could easily be amended away so they insisted on that carve out.
6. For further proof of that point, note the OTHER part they said you couldn't amend until 1808 - the first and fourth clauses of the 9th section of Article 1. That is, allowing states to "import" persons and to set taxes based on the 3/5ths clause. [ahem]
7. The filibuster of course serves only to make an institution *designed* to not represent the will of the American people incapable of even representing the will of the US Senate.
8. But in combination, that means that the primary reason we can't pass laws that American people want is because of the structure of the Senate.
9. The filibuster is not a Constitutional requirement so that part can be fixed just by a majority of Senators changing the rules. Want to protect women's health? Fix campaign finance? Immigration reform? Then stop protecting the filibuster.
10. But to fix the structural problem in the Senate you have to be a little more creative given the self-destruct button built into Article V. Which we've done with a Constitutional amendment to expand the Senate with 12 at large (e.g., national) members. https://casten.house.gov/imo/media/doc/senate_constitutional_amendment.pdf
11. The relative power of the states would remain the same. We keep the bicameral checks and balances. But - for the first time ever - we would now have a block of 10% of the Senate that was directly responsive to national will.
12. For more detail, see here. But the key point is that when we know the institution isn't working, don't give up hope. Pull out the tool box, get to work and fix it! /fin https://casten.house.gov/imo/media/doc/one-pager_senate-amendment_0.pdf
Matt@SeanCasten how do you convince enough small state legislatures and small state Senators to support this to successfully enact it?
Daniel BrockmanThis proposal for a Constitutional Amendment establishing 12 at-large Senators and 12 at-large electors has several good features. It adjusts, but leaves in place, the existing features of the Senate and Electoral College, preserving characteristics which many defenders of these institutions value.
The excessive use of the Senate filibuster in recent decades has weakened the Congress, thereby ceding power to the Executive and Judicial branches.
Misuse Case@SeanCasten apropos of nothing you can get an Abolish the Senate sticker to put on your personal belongings
https://www.redbubble.com/i/sticker/Abolish-The-Senate-by-madalynwilliams/89451765.EJUG5
Nichol Brummer@SeanCasten the filibuster is also a strange way of using internal rules of one chamber of congress to override the constitution. If they want, the house could also have it. As with the 'leaders', that effectively have a veto on which ideas even get a chance to be discussed for voting on. They have a pre-veto.
All rather questionable if that is constitutional.
Jeremy Buchman@SeanCasten Georgia, prior to the Warren Court's one person-one vote rulings, used a system that provided county-based voting power to decide statewide elections. Its county unit system gave disproportionate power to rural counties at the expense of urban ones. It wasn't identical to Senate representation, but it did similarly overweight the votes of rural residents.