The Senate Is Not Fair To People

So, I saw this tweet, by yet another person claiming that critics of U.S. Senate apportionment rules are historically illiterate:

I’m sick and tired of this argument, and I responded with what seems to me to be the obvious rejoinder:

I realize this has become a partisan issue because of the elections, but the factual claim in my tweet is incontrovertible: People in low-population states have far more voting power in the U.S. Senate than people in high-population states, because every state gets two senators, regardless of the population. Thus, the 28 million people living in Texas are represented by only two Senators, whereas the 27 million people living in the combined states of Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North and South Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming are represented by 36 senators. That’s an 18-fold advantage.

Several replies to my tweet were from people who seemed to think they were arguing with me, but who were actually agreeing with me, starting with the original tweeter I responded to:

These people are all making the same point I was making: The Senate does not represent the people fairly and equally because it privileges states. Originally, each state’s senators were elected by state legislatures. The idea was to give state legislatures a say in the federal legislative process. Thus the Senate would be more like the members of the earlier Continental Congress (or U.N. delegates today) than free-standing representatives of the people. 

The 17th amendment screwed all that up by switching the selection of senators to direct popular elections in the states. Nowadays, except for a few constitutional powers, the Senate is basically a smaller version of the House of Representatives, but with longer terms and badly disproportionate representation.

No, the 17th Amendment didn’t just make people think the Senate represents people. The 17th Amendment made the Senate represent people. Just not very well.

A few people took the tiresome path of objecting to my use of the word “democracy”:

And you should have learned in civics class that in the taxonomy of systems of government, a constitutional republic is a type of democracy. The United States is a democracy, and more specifically, a constitutional republic.

I’m not sure how to answer this one. Two conflicting responses come to mind:

• You teach civics, and you don’t know a constitutional republic is a democracy?
• Do you realize that in saying the U.S. is not a democracy, you’re agreeing with my assertion that we’re doing democracy wrong?

Look, the idea of fairness is a pretty basic ethical principle. It’s why the rallying cry of election reformers has so often been some variation of “one person, one vote.”  In utilitarian terms: Everybody matters, and everybody matters equally. Except when voting for U.S. Senators, where some people’s votes are a lot more influential than others.

Yes, it was designed this way on purpose. But that was a compromise (literally, it’s the Connecticut Compromise) necessary, given the concerns of the time, to form the United States into a stronger, more unified government. But just because the Senate’s structure was intentional and necessary doesn’t mean that Senate representation is fair or just.

I also realize that actually changing Senate apportionment would be extremely difficult. At minimum, we’d need a constitutional amendment, and even that wouldn’t be sufficient because Article Five of the Constitution explicitly prohibits amendments that reduce a state’s representation in the Senate without that state’s permission.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with arguing that the Senate’s structure was a good idea at one time, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with arguing that reforming the Senate is far too difficult to be workable. But you can’t argue that the existing structure is moral and right unless you can explain why you think disproportionate representation is a good thing.

Like this, for example:

That was just about the only tweet to avoid getting hung up on side issues and actually attempt to support the disproportionate representation.

My short answer to Forward Observer is that I’m against tyranny too, but tyranny of the majority is still better than tyranny of the minority. You limit tyranny by limiting the authority of government, not giving that authority to a smaller group of people.

And if you want to protect a minority, the Senate’s disproportionate representation shifts voting power to protect a vary strange minority class. It doesn’t protect racial or ethnic minorities, and it doesn’t protect religious minorities, or any of the other classes that are normally considered disadvantaged. And contrary to what Forward Observer is suggesting, it doesn’t even protect people who live in rural areas outside the “biggest cities,” because there are big cities in small states, and there are rural areas in big states. The people living in Las Vegas benefit from their influence over Nevada’s two Senators, and people living in the rural areas of Texas (or New York or California) lose by comparison.

To the extent that Senate apportionment rules protect anyone against tyranny of the majority, they only protect people who live in states with small populations, which is kind of a strangely defined group of people to be concerned about.