« How about Al Franken for Senate Majority Leader? | Main | In praise of Viking women »

December 15, 2009


Frank Glenn

How about a Constitutional Amendment apportioning Senators among the states with a minimum of one per state? If it could get out to the state legislatures, it should pass handily as it would grant more power to NY/FL/CA/etc. and be "no harm no foul" to those states retaining their traditional two senators (by my SWAG)


Why not? Canada and the UK essentially have no upper house. The Canadian Senate is an unelected house of supposedly of great Canadians (retired politicians, professors, respected generals, members of the press) from all over the country which acts a bit like a think tank. It provides second "sober" thought and can propose but not order changes to legislation already passed by the House of Commons, which actually represents the country.

New Zealand abolished their upper house in the 1950s and hasn't missed it since.

If the U.S. isn't willing to go that far then get rid of filibusters. Why should a country be held hostage to a minority party? Other than Constitutional Amendments, why should legislation require a supermajority to go anywhere?

John Petty

Course, what would happen is that the small states would go on and on about their "oppression" by big states--like this happens--and the people would fall for it and raise a big fuss.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Lectionary Posts