This is a revised version of a diary I first posted a few weeks ago. It didn’t get much traction at the time but Paul Krugman’s op-ed today and some discussions I had at my local Protect Mueller rally got me thinking about it again. I think it might attract more interest given Tuesday’s election results (or not). I hope I’m not breaking any site rules and if I am I will delete. Just let me know in the comments.
It is projected that by 2040 70% of the Senate will be elected by 30% of the population. That 30% of the population will be more white, more male, and more rural than the nation as a whole. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about a way to address the issue that doesn’t require a second American revolution. A way that respects and empowers small states but allows the voice of the majority of the population to have the most say. Here is what I’ve come up with:
The U.S. Senate
The Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia has 2040 population projections for each state. I used the current U.S. Senate and assigned the state “blue” status if both sitting Senators caucus with Democrats, “red” status if both caucus with Republicans, and “split” status if, you guessed it, one Senator for each party. For split states, each Senator gets credit for ½ of the population. As an example, Florida’s current population is just under 22 million. Rubio and Nelson would each get credit for 11 million.
Based on this method, I come up with 18 blue states representing 48% of total population and 19 red states representing 38%. That leaves us with 13 split states representing 14% (7% for each party).
I propose the following change to passing legislation or confirmation in the Senate:
- Passing legislation or confirmation in the Senate will require support of Senators representing at least 60% of the total U.S. population.
Neither party would be able to pass legislation without some support from the opposing party. Democrats would control 55% and Republicans would control 45%. They would also have to get support of almost half of the “split” states. This would encourage the parties to compromise with states like Montana, West Virginia, etc. It would also address concerns about small states getting bulldozed. At the same time, it wouldn’t allow a state like Alabama or North Dakota to dictate policy.
House of Representatives
Let me add a quick note about fixing the House of Representatives. I’d like to continue distributing House seats based on state population. However, I’d like to get rid of districts and party-based primaries. Instead House races should all be statewide and use ranked-choice voting. I think we would still end up with representatives of a variety of regions (rural, urban, ethnic makeup, etc) because a candidate could focus on appealing to those different groups. They wouldn’t have to win the whole state. The benefit would this would eliminate partisan gerrymandering, would allow different ethnic and religious groups to be represented even if they are spread out around the state, and it wouldn’t penalize Democratic voters for living in urban areas.
Congress
There are a few final changes that would apply to both the House and Senate.
- I’d also like to see the majority and minority of both Senate and House committees have co-chair privileges.
- Mandatory public financing of all federal campaigns (with matching incentives for small-dollar donors)
- A statutory minimum for all federal elections of 1 voting machine for every 200 registered voters assigned to a polling location. I’m also open to national vote-by-mail.
I have more ideas but that covers the one I feel are most important.