Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

in2herbs

(3,231 posts)
Sat May 7, 2022, 11:08 PM May 2022

IS ADDING MORE SENATORS A SOLUTION WORTH CONSIDERING? [View all]

I am sure this idea has appeared here and elsewhere, but I have not read about it, so I’m putting it out here: INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SENATORS based on the population figures in the official census conducted every ten years to allocate members to the House of Representatives.

There’s an excellent article in the Atlantic by Eric W. Orts which includes a pdf discussing a three-part path for how the Senate can increase the number of senators under the Voting Rights Act. No Constitutional amendment needed. According to Mr. Orts: “Congress would adopt the Rule of One Hundred scheme as a statute; let’s call it the Senate Reform Act. Because it’s legislation rather than an amendment, Article V would—arguably—not apply.”

Here are a few excerpts from the article and its pdf attachment.

The article appeared in the Atlantic and was written by Eric W. Orts. The link to the Atlantic article is: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/heres-how-fix-senate/579172/

The pdf within the Atlantic article is at this link: https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp- content/uploads/2018/12/Senate.Democracy.12.7.18.final_.pdf

Here are some excerpts from the pdf:

“The unequal representation created by the original one state, two senators rule violates principles of voting rights found in the Voting Rights Amendments of the Constitution (including the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments).”

*****

“Congress, acting within its proper scope of constitutional authority under the Voting Rights Amendments, should enact a statute reforming the allocation of senators to the states. The legislation abolishes the rule of one state, two senators. It allocates senators to the states in a manner that both respects the original commitment to federalism (allocating at least one senator to each state) and the rights of American citizens to participate on an equal basis in their political democracy (allocating a greater number of senators to more populous states).”

*******

END.

My Comment: The pdf sets out a three-part process to accomplish this and argues that the Electoral College would better represent the population by adding more Senators. This is the proposition I am putting my support to for creating the changes we need to protect US.

48 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How so without a Constitutional Amendment? Polybius May 2022 #1
Is a Constitutional Amendment required to split a State? PufPuf23 May 2022 #14
Under this scenario, no state(s) is added and no Constitutional amendment is in2herbs May 2022 #18
Statehood for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia would add more Senators. n/t TygrBright May 2022 #2
Is P. R. on board with this? Of course, I'd support the idea wholeheartedly. InAbLuEsTaTe May 2022 #5
Polling seems to indicate a pretty even split. AnyFunctioningAdult May 2022 #41
Yeah, not sure then bout PR...DC fo sho tho. I say ram it thru then & federalize abortion rights. InAbLuEsTaTe May 2022 #42
Who knows what we can do long-term, but we better get out vote in Nov and 2024. Hoyt May 2022 #3
That is where we have to start...without winning the midterm, nothing can be done. Demsrule86 May 2022 #8
People say this GOTV as if its the solution. The states are so gerrymandered that in2herbs May 2022 #19
The laws aren't going to change between now and November. GOTV. Hoyt May 2022 #26
The composition of the Senate is given in Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution. former9thward May 2022 #4
The article and pdf cites reasons why this is not cast in stone. nt in2herbs May 2022 #20
Yes, and the article is wrong. former9thward May 2022 #40
Requires 38 states and 2/3 of the House and Senate to ratify such an amendment. roamer65 May 2022 #6
So do nothing?? With majority Ds in the senate this couldl be passed just like any in2herbs May 2022 #22
No. But increasing the number of house reps is Orangepeel May 2022 #7
The article spends a lot of words sarisataka May 2022 #9
Exactly Novara May 2022 #16
Of course I can imagine how much we could get done with a clear Senate majority, but in2herbs May 2022 #23
Gerrymandering has nothing to do with the Senate. Jedi Guy May 2022 #34
How do you gerrymand a state? hardluck May 2022 #35
The whole premise of gerrymandering collapses on the fact that the Senate MarineCombatEngineer May 2022 #43
All of these things require support from people that want to take away rights JI7 May 2022 #10
It would be easier to reset the number of Representatives because that's governed by a law jmowreader May 2022 #11
Good idea -- approach the issue via House of Reps. nt in2herbs May 2022 #24
The red states might go for it, too jmowreader May 2022 #46
Not necessarily. mwooldri May 2022 #12
this is a bizarre fantasy. it basically imagines a very left-wing supreme court radically unblock May 2022 #13
You'd have to be more specific in your reasoning for there to be a response. nt in2herbs May 2022 #29
The paper imagines a Supreme Court completely unlike recent ones muriel_volestrangler May 2022 #44
Thank you. Better explanation than mine. unblock May 2022 #47
It is interesting that California has about 40 million people and only two Senators... kentuck May 2022 #15
California-2 Senators sarisataka May 2022 #17
Why not two states of California - North California and South California? kentuck May 2022 #21
The Dakotas were admitted as two states sarisataka May 2022 #27
I'm not in favor of that but even if it was done I don't see the increase equaling in2herbs May 2022 #28
This message was self-deleted by its author LiberatedUSA May 2022 #30
It's obviously not. And the Atlantic article put for a solution, a solution that does not in2herbs May 2022 #25
... Crepuscular May 2022 #37
Just to be clear, slavery had a lot to do with that structure unblock May 2022 #48
If republicans... LiberatedUSA May 2022 #31
Senators would be added but the voters would be the deciders as to whether they would in2herbs May 2022 #32
The article makes the argument sarisataka May 2022 #36
We haven't made a new state since I was a kid in 1959. Emile May 2022 #33
multiple Dems are against adding more states and/or also adding more SCOTUS justices so none of this Celerity May 2022 #38
Why? Emile May 2022 #39
because they're institutionalists for the most part, and we'd have to do a filibuster carveout Celerity May 2022 #45
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»IS ADDING MORE SENATORS A...