councilor.org
| Source | Steven Hill |
| Date | 99/05/01/02:13 |
| /* Written 2:23 PM Mar 11, 1998 by jshell@netcom.com in igc:labr.all */ /* ---------- "Is The U.S. Senate a Dinosaur?" ---------- */ > From shill@igc.org Tue Mar 10 00:05:16 1998 > Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 23:24:26 -0800 (PST) > From: Steven Hill > Subject: Is The U.S. Senate a Dinosaur? > > Is The U.S. Senate a Dinosaur? > By Steven Hill > > The latest attempt at campaign finance legislation, known as the > McCain-Feingold bill, went down to defeat recently, courtesy of another > filibuster in the U.S. Senate. Is anybody surprised that, once again, the > foxes declined to board up the hen house that feeds their appetites? > > What is this filibuster business, anyway? McCain-Feingold had the support of > a majority of Senators, but under the arcane rules of the U.S. Senate, a > majority isn’t enough to get anything done because 41% can block a vote on > legislation. That flies in the face of a revered democratic tradition called > "majority-rule." > > As undemocratic as a filibuster seems, the full enormity of the problem is > far worse. Because of the unique way that the U.S. Senate allots > representation—based on two Senators per state instead of by population—it’s > possible that Senators representing only 10 percent of the nation can block > legislation desired by the other 90 percent. > > Consider this: California has 66 times as many people as Wyoming, yet these > states have the same representation in the U.S. Senate. Texas, with 19 > million people, has the same representation as Montana, with less than 1 > million people. A Senator in Rhode Island represents 500,000 residents > while a Senator in New York represents 9 million. > > According to author Michael Lind, writing recently in Mother Jones, today > half of the Senate can be elected by 15 percent of the American people, and > only 10 percent can elect 40 percent of the Senate. By filibustering, > Senators representing little more than one-tenth of the nation can block > reforms supported by the House, the President and their fellow Senators, who > represent the other 90 percent of the country. > > What’s more, because of its special constitutional role approving > presidential appointments, including judicial offices and confirming > treaties, the Senate has a powerful influence on all three branches of > government. > > Filibusters and pork-barreling by Senators representing a minority of the > population aren’t just mathematically possible or political theory. > According to a report called Monopoly Politics released by our Center for > Voting and Democracy, the nine most conservative states with only 5 percent > of the nation’s population control 18 percent of Senate seats. In other > words, these conservative states are over-represented in the Senate by three > and a half times. > > This conservative bloc has used its over-representation to great advantage > in the Senate. For example, in 1991 the Senate voted 52-48 to appoint > Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, even though Senators supporting > Thomas represented a minority of the American people. From 1981-87, > President Ronald Reagan would have faced a Democratic Senate if the Senate > had been elected on the basis of population. Urban policy and assistance > for inner cities have been bottled up by Senators representing conservative > low-population rural states. And now, these same conservative Senators, led > by Senate leader Trent Lott from Mississippi, have joined with Republican > Senators from big states like Texas and Pennsylvania, to kill campaign > finance reform. > > How ironic—the same Senators who balked at the nominations of Lani Guinier > and Bill Lann Lee because of those nominees’ support for affirmative action > wield disproportionate power due to arcane Senate rules that over-represent > low-population states. This is not an issue of conservatives vs. liberals > or Democrats vs. Republicans, it’s an issue of fairness. It wasn’t that > long ago that Democratic Senators like Frank Church (Idaho) and Mike > Mansfield (Montana) wielded mighty legislative hammers that benefited their > low-population states. > > The U.S. Senate was originally designed by the Founding Fathers as a > compromise to settle the Big State vs. Little State controversy. But the > solution solved one dilemma only to create others that still haunt our > nation. There are only two routes to balancing representation in the > Senate. One is to amend the U.S. Constitution, which is an arduous path > that, ironically enough, requires two thirds support in the Senate and no > doubt would be blocked by the same Senators that benefit from the status > quo. Another route is voluntary division of the big states into smaller > states, with each new state allocated two Senators. But neither solution > will be politically viable any time soon. In the meantime, Senators from > low-population states will continue brandishing disproportionate legislative > power. > > Most legislatures, not only in the U.S. but around the world, base > representation on population. This is a principle that many popular > revolutions and struggles have fought for and wrested from kings, dictators > and tyrants. It’s a sound principle, and one that our American democracy > proudly exported to the rest of the world, so many years ago. > > Except in the U.S. Senate. That body is in the running for the least > representative legislature among western democracies, outside the British > House of Lords. It’s time to scrutinize more closely this antiquated > legislative body that is so unrepresentative of the American people. > > Steven Hill is the west coast director of the Center for Voting and > Democracy (http://www.igc.org/cvd). The views in this piece are his own. |
Copyright (c) 1998, Joongpil Cho