The U.S. Senate

To some, abolishing the Electoral College and adding seats to the Supreme Court is not enough. Some have begun raising questions about the potential to reform the U.S. Senate. The notion of reforming the Senate would be laughable if it was not for the dangers of such talk.

Those that wish to reform the Senate make the argument that the Senate is an undemocratic institution. They believe it is unfair that each state has equal representation regardless of population. They are correct on both points, but they are either ignorant, intellectually dishonest, or are flat out deceiving the American people.

The origins of the Senate

Those that say the Senate is an undemocratic institution are correct. What they do not tell you is it’s designed that way on purpose. Here again, we see the failures of our education system as people continually call the United States a democracy. The founding fathers did not like the idea of direct democracy, and they believed democracy leads to the “tyranny of the majority.” So, the founders settled on creating a Republic.

While the House of Representatives is the “peoples” House, the Senate exists to represent the States. The Senate is an institution designed to protect the rights of States and to ensure that the minority opinion will always have say. In addition, the founding fathers wanted to ensure that Senators do what is in the best interests of their State as opposed to what the people may want.

They understood people would call for the government to act in areas/policy issues government should not be involved in. The founding fathers recognized the people can be wrong and will make constant demands of government. The founding fathers believed the U.S. Senate should not be influenced by the political pressures of the people.

The Senate is supposed to be a more deliberative body than the House. To make sure Senators were removed from the majority whims of the population, Senators were originally elected by state legislatures so that they would be more aligned to the concept of state rights and work within the state’s best interest. Madison made this clear when he said,

“First to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.”- James Madison

However, in 1913, the powers that be decided to move away from the sound logic of the founding fathers, and the 17^th Amendment was ratified. Senate appointments by State legislatures did present problems such as long vacancies, corruption of Senators due to the stronghold of the political machines and party bosses, as well as the elite classes having power over the Senate.

The 17^th Amendment established that Senators would no longer be appointed by state legislatures. Rather, they would be directly elected by the people of the state. This removed a major safeguard within the system. They would now be susceptible to the political pressures of the people. The 17th Amendment was an overreaction. Prior to the 17^th Amendment, the problems within the Senate could have been fixed internally.

The Reinvention of the Senate

Once again, those calling for reforming the Senate are only doing so for political and ideological reasons. It has little to do with any defect within the system. They claim they want to reform the Senate in the name of democracy, but as stated before the Senate is supposed to be undemocratic, and we are a Republic.

They argue it is not fair how a state like Idaho, with a population of 1.7 million people, has the same representation as a state like California, which has a population of 39.5 million people. It has nothing to do with representation and everything to do with domination. If we allow Senate seats to be apportioned by population, then the most populous states will dominate American politics and the smaller states become completely irrelevant.

Leave the Senate alone

Keeping inline with the original intent of the founding fathers, we should leave the U.S. Senate alone. We should not be calling for reforms for political and ideological reasons. If these changes ever become reality, rest assured one party will dominate the political spectrum for the foreseeable future. One party control never ends well in societies and always leads to totalitarian regimes. The success of this country is based on two vibrant parties that check and balance each other.

Every State in our Union is important, and every State should have equal say within the Senate. Nobody should want a country that is dominated by the political influences of California and New York. The founding fathers institutionalized safeguards within the system to prevent something like this from happening. Thankfully, it would be extraordinarily difficult for these people to reinvent the Senate, but the fact that it has become a serious discussion is cause for concern.

Follow Nicholas Giordano

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•