With the Senate bogged down like never before, over the past day I have taken to wondering what can be done to reform our least democratic of institutions (unless you think WY should have the same representation as CA, it is wildly undemocratic). Some on the left favor abolishing it, or replacing the two-per state system with proportional representation of some sort. Well, I have a wackier idea: a constitutional amendment to reform Senate rules.
My Proposed amendment to the constitution:
There shall be fifteen standing committees of the United States Senate: agriculture, nutrition and forestry; appropriations; armed services; banking, housing and urban affairs; budget; commerce, science and transportation; energy and national resources; environment and public works; finance; foreign relations; governmental affairs; health, education, labor and pensions; judiciary; rules and administration; small business and entrepreneurship; veterans affairs.
In order for any legislation to be taken to a vote by the entire United States Senate, such legislation must have the approval of the majority of the members of the standing committee that has purview over that area of legislation.
The chair of each of the fifteen standing committees of the United States Senate shall be chosen by direct national election every two years. Elections shall take place in even numbered years on the first Tuesday of November. A person may only stand for election to a committee chair if that person is a member of the United States Senate at the time of the election. No Senator may stand for election as a committee chair and stand election to the United States Senate state simultaneously. Only one member of each party may stand for election to any given chair in any given election. A Senator must have served at least two full years in the United States Senate in order to stand in an election for committee chair.
Every standing committee shall have fifteen members. The chair of each standing committee shall have the power to select seven members of the committee for which he or she is chair. The seven remaining members of each standing committee shall be chosen by the Senator who received the second most votes in the most recent national election for chair of that standing committee. Subcommittee membership shall be by determined by the members of the standing committee with legislative oversight of the subcommittee.
The United States Senate as a whole shall determine the legislative purview of every standing committee no later than the first of August, the year before a committee chair election. Such determinations must be agreed upon by a two-thirds majority of the United States Senate. If no determination has been reached by that date, the determination reached by the previous session of the United States Senate shall remain in effect. The first such determination of legislative purview of the several committees must be submitted to the several states as part of this amendment. Approval of this amendment will put that agreement into effect.
I think an amendment of this sort would have several benefits.
- --Every two years the nation would have fifteen national elections each based on a separate issue. Considering that most of our current elections are run almost entirely devoid of issues, implementing a system of purely issue-based campaigning would considerably raise the level of public debate in this country.
- --It would make power in the Senate more accountable to the nation as a whole, since it would prevent a Senator in a safe seat from, say, WV, largely determining national legislation on an entire issue for decades. The Senate solves national problems, and its most important issues need to receive national approval. Also, the most powerful senators would have their power granted to them by the nation as a whole, rather than by seniority, power-broking, other senators, and the voters of just one state.
- --Power in the Senate would no longer be granted to a broad ideology due to a small majority of one party or the other. Liberalism would not trump conservatism simply due to a 50-49-1 edge in overall membership, nor would conservatism run nearly unchecked due to a 51-48-1 edge. Instead, power would be determined on an issue-by-issue basis, rather than broad ideologies controlling all issues at once.
- --The country would come closer to actually receiving the legislation it wants. The country likes Democrats on health care, and in all likelihood a Democrat would win the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions chair (hell, that committee seems made to be run by Democrats). The country likes Republicans when it comes to defense, and the Armed Services chair would probably be a lock for Republicans. Rather than forcing the majority of the country, who both agrees and disagrees with both Democrats and Republicans, to choose one side or the other, any individual could vote on the basis of their personal ideology.
- --Women would stand for several national elections every year, and win at least a couple of them. This would greatly raise the profile of women in government, and serve as a farm system for future presidential candidates.
Of course any plan, that would both reduce the power of Senators and require the approval of the majority of senators would never happen. That's why this idea is whacked. However, considering the current state of affairs, a boy can dream, can't he?
Just a quick guess as to which party would win each chair:
Agriculture, Nutrition and forestry: Toss-up
Appropriations: Lean Republican
Armed Services: Solid Republican
Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs: Solid Democrat
Budget: Toss-up
Commerce, Science and Transportation: Lean Democrat
Energy and Natural Resources: Solid Democrat
Environment and Public Works: Solid Democrat
Finance: Solid Republican
Foreign Relations: Toss-up
Governmental Affairs: Toss-up
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions: Solid Democrat
Judiciary: Lean republican
Rules and Administration: Toss-up
Small Business: Solid Republican
Veterans Affairs: Lean Republican