Do hereby propose that each state be given a 3rd Senate seat. Senate terms should remain 6 years long, with an election for one of the Senators occurring every 2 years.
Senator's votes should no longer be counted individually. On each issue whichever side the majority of that state's Senators agree gets the 1 state vote. This should give greater importance to each state as a whole, rather than individual voters, which is the point of the Senate to begin with.
Note: This has been stuck in my head for a couple weeks now and I wanted to try and get it out. The unlikelihood of such actually being taken up is noted. And please ignore the government growth aspect and focus on what it might mean for state's power. This is a piece purely to prompt discussion.
The TORARADICAL Communications Network. News with heart. Home to the #oooShinyNetwork.
My first thought is, "Do we really want MORE politicians in Washington?"
ReplyDeleteOf course they would be spending more taxayer money and increase chances for lobbying.
The founders designed the HOUSE to reflect more current popular issues but the SENATE to provide coordination for the State's interest in more long term views. This from the Senate site:
The framers believed that having state legislatures elect senators would strengthen the states' ties to the national government and increase the chances for ratification of the Constitution. They hoped that this arrangement would give state political leaders a sense of participation, calming their fears about a strong central government. They also wanted to provide a filter between the Senate and the passions and pressures of the populace.
That balance was intended to provide a constructive tension on legislation - even before it was approved or vetoed by they viewpoint of the Executive Branch.
Although I have no documentation to benefit my theory, I think they suspected there would be two sides of any issue and they DESIGNED a stalemate within the state, and then within the congress to guard against disastrous legislation.
A third Senator might eliminate this by FORCING a pro or con instead of a draw. While this might benefit a Congress intent on passing reform legislation, it also might tip the the approval of temporal bills (like Cap And Trade with Global Warming fears to sort through) that wouldn't see the light of day if more states were in stalemate.