« I have seen the future and it is ... | Main | The frequency frontier in Japan »

March 13, 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Amendments not specifically prohibited:

Add a third house of the legislature, and transfer all of the senate's powers there.

Add a third house of the legislature that is co-equal with the senate, such that a bill needs to pass the house and either the senate or the third house

Constitutionally mandate that the senate only needs a 1/3 affirmative vote to pass something already passed by the house.

Add constitutional provisions to allow states to split into separate states that are still free federate their local services and governments within the boundaries of the old state, then split all the states up along congressional district boundaries.

Pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting the senate from passing bills that allocate monies to projects in particular states except in direct proportion to the population of the state.

Repeal the 16th amendment, increase the senate to 400 senators (8/state), allocate federal taxes to the states directly the way the framers intended, but proportional to their number of senators, with of course, a provision to allow them to consent to senatorial representation proportional to their population. Montana *could* keep it's 8 senators, if it wanted.

I would take a more radical approach. There's nothing sacred about geographical representation (Bolivia, for example, elects their Senate by ethnic identity) and the technology certainly exists to allow for proportional representation.

Define a dozen or so areas of voter interest (labor, agriculture, defense, and so on) with voters able to select from a slate (either regionally or nationally) four or five people to represent their varied interests. Receiving four or five ballots (one for each interest sector) doesn't mean a candidate couldn't appear on more than one ballot (say, running to represent labor or agriculture. It would mean that there was a Senate that theoretically had people who had an interest in the same things voters have interests in, and who might bring the voter's concerns to public issues. Considering farm interests or environmental issues when discussing the defense budget wouldn't be such a bad idea (and I can't see how it would make things worse).

Then again, maybe just go with a House of Lords made up of CEOs.

The comments to this entry are closed.