What if the U.S. Senate was elected in proportion to voter income? Or by age?

[yllus]

Just a thought exercise.

What if senators represented people by income or race, not by state?

What if the 100-member Senate were designed to mirror the overall U.S. population -- and were based on statistics rather than state lines?

Imagine a chamber in which senators were elected by different income brackets -- with two senators representing the poorest 2 percent of the electorate, two senators representing the richest 2 percent and so on.

Based on Census Bureau data, five senators would represent Americans earning between $100,000 and $1 million individually per year, with a single senator working on behalf of the millionaires (technically, it would be two-tenths of a senator).

Eight senators would represent Americans with no income. Sixteen would represent Americans who make less than $10,000 a year, an amount well below the federal poverty line for families.

The bulk of the senators would work on behalf of the middle class, with 34 representing Americans making $30,000 to $80,000 per year.

Imagine trying to convince someone -- Michael Bloomberg, perhaps? -- to be the lonely senator representing the richest percentile. And what if the senators were apportioned according to jobs figures? This year, the unemployed would have gained two seats. Think of the deals that would be made to attract that bloc!

...


What about a Senate in which voters cast ballots for candidates campaigning to win over a certain age group? Thirteen senators would vie for 18-to-24-year-olds, who strongly support measures such as the cap-and-trade climate bill and marriage rights for gays. Nearly all of these senators would be Democrats.

Americans over 65 would control 16 seats -- and would be mostly Republicans interested in protecting Medicare and the broader status quo. The baby boomer bubble would be largely in the eldest category, though its stragglers would round out the segment of voters, probably split between the parties, that is edging up on retirement.

Thirty-six senators would serve 25-to-44-year-olds, and 35 senators 45-to-64-year-olds -- and would be likely to push the very issues now on the table, including health care, entitlement viability and tax breaks for the middle class.

 

[Throckmorton]

Any of those schemes would be more representative than the current inherently undemocratic senate, in which Rhode Island has as many Senators as Texas.

 

[Infohawk]

Plutocracy = bad results; Gerontocracy = not as bad but still bad results

 

[BoberFett]

Any of those schemes would be more representative than the current inherently undemocratic senate, in which Rhode Island has as many Senators as Texas.

That's the whole point. The senate gives each state an equal say and the house gives weight to population. The only thing that needs to be fixed is adjusting the house for changes in population.

 

[dammitgibs]

senators represent people based on race?? somewhere there has to be a picture of MLK jr doing a face palm

 

[Throckmorton]

Plutocracy = bad results; Gerontocracy = not as bad but still bad results

It wouldn't be plutocracy. If anything it would be the exact opposite. Senators would be assigned to segments of the population classified by wealth.

 

[shiner]

Here's a better question...what if our fucking politicians weren't bought and paid for by a group of assholes on both sides that don't give a Vietnamese spin fuck chair what happens to the populace as long as it furthers their agenda?

 

[Double Trouble]

Any of those schemes would be more representative than the current inherently undemocratic senate, in which Rhode Island has as many Senators as Texas.

You do realize there is such a thing called the "House of representatives" where the number of representatives are determined by population, right? The senate was never supposed to represent population tally's, it's supposed to give every state equal representation no matter how big or small.

 

[Infohawk]

It wouldn't be plutocracy. If anything it would be the exact opposite. Senators would be assigned to segments of the population classified by wealth.

Oh yeah you're right.

 

[MotF Bane]

Any of those schemes would be more representative than the current inherently undemocratic senate, in which Rhode Island has as many Senators as Texas.

Not sure if serious.

 

[ProfJohn]

Here's a better question...what if our fucking politicians weren't bought and paid for by a group of assholes on both sides that don't give a Vietnamese spin fuck chair what happens to the populace as long as it furthers their agenda?

The only reason they are bought is because they have power.

Take away that power and watch the money go away too.

 

[charrison]

Any of those schemes would be more representative than the current inherently undemocratic senate, in which Rhode Island has as many Senators as Texas.

The senate is about the states and everyone gets 2 votes. It is fair for what it is designed to do.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Interesting idea! chance of a wholesale change in government 0.00%

 

[soccerballtux]

No representation without taxation.

 

[ShawnD1]

No representation without taxation.

What if the people paying taxes vote to put the no-tax people in death camps?

Representation for all!

 

[Patranus]

The main problem with the senate is that Senators are elected by popular vote not by the state legislatures.

The role of the Senate was to represent the interests of the state government not the direct will of the people.

 

[Schadenfroh]

What if the people paying taxes vote to put the no-tax people in death camps?

Representation for all!

The Bill of Rights prevent such things from occurring. But, nice straw-man argument....

 

[nick1985]

Any of those schemes would be more representative than the current inherently undemocratic senate, in which Rhode Island has as many Senators as Texas.

Are you retarded?

 

[Throckmorton]

You do realize there is such a thing called the "House of representatives" where the number of representatives are determined by population, right? The senate was never supposed to represent population tally's, it's supposed to give every state equal representation no matter how big or small.

Exactly, and that's why it's undemocratic. A state with 1 million people has the same number of senators as a state with 25 million and therefore a disproportionate say in government. My vote for a senator here in Hawaii is worth much more than it was worth in Texas.

Every bill has to pass both the House and the Senate, so you can't say the House somehow makes the Senate OK.

Which part of "inherently undemocratic" are you, nick1985, and charrison not understanding here?

 

[nick1985]

Exactly, and that's why it's undemocratic.

And its a great thing we are Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.

:thumbsup:

 

[nick1985]

Which part of "inherently undemocratic" are you, nick1985, and charrison not understanding here?

And which part of "The United States is NOT a Democracy" are you have trouble with?

 

[Throckmorton]

And its a great thing we are Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.

:thumbsup:

And which part of "The United States is NOT a Democracy" are you have trouble with?

/facepalm

Being a republic or representative democracy means that the people are represented by elected officials in government rather than voting directly. That has nothing to do with the senate being inherently undemocratic by being disproportionate. Are you actually arguing that nothing can be undemocratic in this country because we're a republic?

A direct democracy is 100% proportionate. The House is very very proportionate and therefore very democratic. The senate is completely disproportionate and therefore undemocratic. Being that way by design doesn't make it any less so.

 

[piasabird]

I think the house of representatives is too large and we need a new formula for the number of representatives per capita. We also need to look at who we consider to be USA Citizens. Just because a person can cross our border and spurt out a baby it does not mean that child should receive welfare and citizenship. We need some common sense to be applied to the law.

 

[nick1985]

The senate is completely disproportionate and therefore undemocratic.

/facepalm

Its not supposed to be. Take it up with George Washington or James Madison.

 

[Throckmorton]

/facepalm

Its not supposed to be. Take it up with George Washington or James Madison.

.....

Did I say it was supposed to be proportionate and democratic? No, I said that it IS inherently undemocratic because it's disproportionate. I would love to take it up with George Washington or James Madison, but they're dead. If you can build a time machine let me know.


BTW, also if you have a time machine, go about 30 years in the future. You'll see that more liberals have continued to move to sparsely populated Western states and tilted them over to the Democrat side, leading to a senate dominated by Democrats, regardless of the actual split of the population.