Kerby Anderson

Progressive partisans want to reform the US Senate because of its unequal representation. Frustrated after Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed as an Associate Justice, they point out that Democrat senators represent a much larger percentage of the American populace than Republican senators. That is certainly true. The votes of two senators from California (with a population of 39 million) are equal to the votes of two senators from Wyoming (with a population around 590,000). But it is also worth mentioning the Democrats dominate in a number of small states (Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Hawaii). Demographers even predict that two decades from now, half the population of the US will live in just eight states. That to me makes the case for the Senate. Otherwise we would have just a handful of states deciding everything for the rest of the nation. As we know from our history, the bicameral Congress was a compromise that made it possible for both large states and small states to ratify the Constitution. If any other proposal were seen as too advantageous to big or small states, it would have failed. We are the beneficiaries of a compromise that forces diverse sectors of the country to work together to craft legislation fair to everyone. I might also add that all of this talk of reforming the US Senate is just that: talk. First, you would need an amendment to the Constitution. That requires two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. Second, even if you could get an amendment, it could be vetoed by one state. Article V of the Constitution also dictates that a state cannot be deprived of its equal suffrage “without its consent.” The small states would never agree to any amendment reducing their representation. Progressives can complain all they want about the US Senate, but nothing is going to change.