Daniel Franklin: The U.S. Senate: Undemocratic and Anachronistic (Convert It into a U.S. House of Lords)
[Daniel Franklin is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Georgia State University in Atlanta, Georgia. He received his BA in political science from UCLA and his MA and PhD from the Department of Government at the University of Texas, Austin.]
In my last post I wrote about the problems of the U.S. Senate, especially associated with its’ principle of representation which is anachronistic and undemocratic.
To be frank I’m a little torn about what to do about it. There are some features of representation in the Senate that are probably worth keeping. For example, the six year term of Senators gives the Senate a valuable long(er) time horizon. Furthermore, there is an argument to be made for preserving some of the regional character of representation in the Senate. But I’m not sure regional representation is worth preserving at the cost of essentially disenfranchising citizens who live in large population states (not just in the Senate but in the Electoral College as well).
I have an offbeat proposal which I borrow from the British Parliament. How about turning the Senate into an American version of the House of Lords? Now, wait a second, before you tune me out, I’m not proposing that we create hereditary privileges (by the way that is forbidden by the Constitution anyhow). What I am proposing is that we institutionalize an award of service to the nation and take advantage of the input of citizens of the United States who have done great things in the service of their country but who are unlikely to get involved in politics.
In Britain, some but not all peers are eligible to sit in the House of Lords. Those who are must register in advance if they plan to attend a session of Parliament in part because there are so many peers and in part because the Lords is better served by the attendance of peers who have a regular interest and knowledge of public policy....
Read entire article at Britannica Blog
In my last post I wrote about the problems of the U.S. Senate, especially associated with its’ principle of representation which is anachronistic and undemocratic.
To be frank I’m a little torn about what to do about it. There are some features of representation in the Senate that are probably worth keeping. For example, the six year term of Senators gives the Senate a valuable long(er) time horizon. Furthermore, there is an argument to be made for preserving some of the regional character of representation in the Senate. But I’m not sure regional representation is worth preserving at the cost of essentially disenfranchising citizens who live in large population states (not just in the Senate but in the Electoral College as well).
I have an offbeat proposal which I borrow from the British Parliament. How about turning the Senate into an American version of the House of Lords? Now, wait a second, before you tune me out, I’m not proposing that we create hereditary privileges (by the way that is forbidden by the Constitution anyhow). What I am proposing is that we institutionalize an award of service to the nation and take advantage of the input of citizens of the United States who have done great things in the service of their country but who are unlikely to get involved in politics.
In Britain, some but not all peers are eligible to sit in the House of Lords. Those who are must register in advance if they plan to attend a session of Parliament in part because there are so many peers and in part because the Lords is better served by the attendance of peers who have a regular interest and knowledge of public policy....