by William P. Meyers

July 22, 2007 at Point Arena, California

There is an important matter up before a nation’s government. A person who disagrees with me gets one vote. I get the equivalent of 1/35th of a vote.

Is that fair? Is that how a democracy should work?

Is this bizarre mockery of democracy taking place in Cuba or Iran? No. It is taking place here in the United States of America, and it is how the business of government has been done here for over 200 years.

I live in California, which as I write this essay in 2007 has a population of about 35 million. There are six states with populations under one million: Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming.

Each state elects to persons to the U. S. Senate, where they have equal votes. The U.S. Senate is an important place. It shares many powers with the House of Representatives, which are listed for the most part in Section 8 of the Constitution. It also has some exclusive powers: “the sole power to try all impeachments,” to advise and consent (or not) to treaties negotiated by the President; and advise and consent to appointments of Ambassadors, Supreme Court and other federal judges, and “All other officers of the United States.”

The people of California engage in commerce that results in an immense trade with foreign nations, but when it comes to trade treaties, we get the same say as less than 1 million people in South Dakota.

Almost everyone in the United States has been taught how this sad state of affairs came about. When slavery was declared abolished on England’s soil in 1772 a group of slavers in certain American colonies of the British Empire called upon certain men in New England whose friends were involved in the slave trade and decided it was time to make sure that the soil of the American colonies was not considered English soil. This group was called the Committees of Correspondence. Leaders of 13 colonies joined in the enterprise; in the original Articles of Confederation each colony received one vote in Congress.

When an even more conservative group of rich white men became unhappy with the direction of the United States of America some of their representatives came together in 1787 to write an even more conservative (favorable to the rich) set of rules for national government. As a compromise between the states with smaller populations, who wanted to stick with the one-state, one-vote formula, and the states with larger populations, who wanted representation according to population (including slaves), was made. Each state got 2 Senators. Each got at least one member in the House of Representatives, and states got more in proportion to their populations. Slavery was also enshrined and protected in this Constitution.

When the first national census was taken in 1790 Virginia had the largest population with 747,000; Delaware the smallest, with 59,000. The inequality ratio of the Senate was about 12.5 in this worst case, but the six middling-population states had populations varying between 142,000 and 395,000, so most states found having 2 Senators to be tolerable.

Why, when the U.S. preaches democracy with bombs and bullets, is there not more talk about the gross inequalities caused by the U.S. Senate? Partly because for most laws to pass, they must also pass in the House of Representatives, where one-citizen, one-vote is observed to a reasonable degree.

The other reason is that entrenched interests that are opposed to democracy like the Senate. This goes back to the real purpose of the Senate. It was always supposed to be an elite, non-democratic institution. The gentlemen slavers of the State of Virginia wanted more seats in the Senate in 1788 not because they wanted democracy, but because they wanted more of a say within an oligarchy.

The U.S. Senate was modeled after two institutions: the ancient Roman Senate (hence its name) and the modern House of Lords in Great Britain. Washington and crew imagined themselves Lords; the Senate provided was recognition of their superior status as well as control of the most important features of the new national government.

Note that the relatively democratic House of Representatives was given no power over the appointment of officials, including the Supreme Court. They are not even allowed to have a say in treaties with foreign powers. This includes the Free Trade agreements so popular with the international corporate elite of late. These trade agreements have, effectively, diminished the ability of the House of Representatives to pass laws for the economic good of U.S. citizens.

It should also be noted that in the original Constitution the members of the U.S. Senate were not directly elected. In stead they were selected by the upper houses of the state legislatures. That defect was cured by the 17th Amendment.

I would certainly prefer to see the Senate elected by proportional representation rather than keeping the current system. But at this point in the evolution of the U.S. Constitution, I believe the best course would be to amend the Constitution to abolish the Senate and give its powers to the House of Representatives. This would streamline the government as well as making it more democratic.