The Framers of the Constitution created an incredibly elegant and powerful document that has withstood the test of time. In order to reach consensus, however, the Framers had to placate the small states that were worried that their voices would be drowned out by the majority; hence the creation of the Senate in which every state gets two senators regardless of population.
From its inception, the Senate has been the least democratic institution in the U.S. and demographic changes have only increased its undemocratic character. Wyoming, with little over 500,000 people gets the same Senate representation as California, with its population of almost 37 million; this means that each California Senator represent 75 times more people than the Senators from Wyoming. It doesn’t get much more unequal than this. This undemocratic trend will only continue as population growth continues to shift to the more populous coastal states.
On top of the radically unequal distribution of political power, the Senate’s filibuster provision allows only 40 members to block legislation. If those 40 members come disproportionately from smaller states this can present a situation where Senators representing no more than one fifth of the electorate can block legislation favored by the other four-fifths.
How this imbalance warps legislation is clear in the contrasting healthcare bills being put forth by the House of Representatives and the Senate committees. In the House, where members are allotted proportional to population, the bill being proposed includes a strong public option and taxes on the super-wealthy, both of which are supported by wide majorities of the public. In the Senate it is unclear whether either of these provisions will make it to the final bill despite widespread public approval, largely because of the intransigence of a few rural senators representing a few million people.
There are some who argue that the Senate’s arcane structure helps to slow the pace of legislation in good ways, allowing for greater discussion and debate, and preventing major new bills from being enacted without sizeable majorities. This may be the case when both political parties are serious about reform and take the issues seriously, but it can be paralyzing when one party is interested only in obstruction and not the public interest. This is the case we face today, with a Republican Party increasingly catering to its lunatic fringe, peddling lies and misinformation, and bent on inflicting serious damage on Obama’s presidency.
But even with the high hurdles posed by the Senate rules and its undemocratic character, Obama and the Democrats have both the votes to overcome a filibuster and pass whatever legislation they want without the help of any Republicans. This is what people interested in real healthcare reform have been urging the President to do for months, knowing full well that the Republicans would not negotiate in good faith.
At long last, it seems as if the White House has finally come to realize that this is the right strategy to pursue. Hopefully, come September they will show the country that they mean business, and pass comprehensive reform.
Jason Scorse