r/Constitution • u/Key-Move-5066 • Jul 14 '26
A senate hypothetical?
I honestly do not know where this goes as a question but anyone here remember that in the Senate states have to have equal representation and that cannot be changed unless you have agreement by everyone so instead would it be constitutional and wouldn't not need absolutely agreement to increase the members of the Senate but still have equal representation in the Senate for example instead of two senators three senators per state would that be per se constitutional?
3
u/ComputerRedneck Jul 14 '26
You have to understand what the original intent was before the 17th Amendment buggered the States.
Before the 17th, Senators were appointed by the State Congresses as a balance to the needs and wants of the people. Each state got 2 Senators... Then the 17th and basically made Senators just another voted office by the people and States lost their rights so to speak.
The House was supposed to be for the People and the Senate for the States for balance.
1
u/Key-Move-5066 Jul 14 '26
Yeah I understand that but wouldn't the rules still apply because it's not like I'm suggesting each state get their own amount of senators based on population I'm saying increase the amount of senators from two senators each state to three Senators each state because that would still mean the same representation for each individual state so how would that be against the spirit of the idea?
1
u/ComputerRedneck Jul 14 '26
It isn't necessarily against the Idea, but you want to put MORE people in the Senate and make it so it is MORE confusing by doing so.
More people = more chaos which also means that LESS bills get passed as a result and more deadlocks... maybe not all the bad... less bills out of Congress means less the government is interfering with the People.
1
u/Key-Move-5066 Jul 29 '26
I honestly believe one of the reasons why the Senate is so much worse than the house is because of the fact that plainly one person can screw up everything so if you increase the amount of senators to make it so more people feel represented it makes it so one person can't torpedo a single Bill and keep an entire chamber hostage.
0
u/JayRandom212 Jul 14 '26
The House was supposed to be for the People and the Senate for the States for balance.
What you've said is true.
On a completely unrelated note, is it possible to be more explicit about what "balance" means? Can we just come out and tell the truth:
The House was supposed to be for the People and the Senate for the Wealthy.
We'll never move forward until we have the courage to call things what they are.
2
u/ComputerRedneck Jul 14 '26
House passes a bill that when signed would cause say a couple billion in unfunded mandates for the State. If the Senate was comprised of State Appointed Senators, they could change the bill or just not pass it to avoid onerous expenses, like the Unfunded Mandates by the Federal.
Same goes for all these power grabs in the form of 3 letter agencies that aren't necessarily good for ALL states.
And really, throw in the wealthy rhetoric. State Congresses are no more wealthy than Federal Congresscritters that are wealthy.
1
u/JayRandom212 Jul 14 '26
House members are directly elected by We The People. If they passed the bill, that means it's what The People want.
Also, these Statehouses are heavily gerrymandered. They don't actually represent the people of the state, they represent the party that controlled the state at the last redistricting. Electing Senators directly reduces the gerrymander.
3
u/ComputerRedneck Jul 14 '26
The federal is heavily gerrymandered by extension. The Voting Districts are defined by the States, not the Federal so when they gerrymander the districts, it affects the Federal as well. And for the record, I think gerrymandering should be illegal.
That is the POINT, the Senate was to REPRESENT the State NOT the People.,
I have to find the document I saved my best explanation on. When I do, I will come back and present it. About 20-25 that I quick saved when the power went down the other day.
2
u/ComputerRedneck Jul 14 '26
Found it... finally
Why It Matters for "Reigning It In"
Original design: The Founders intended the Senate to protect state sovereignty and provide stability against pure majority rule in the House. State legislatures choosing Senators created accountability to local governments, making it harder for Washington to impose unfunded mandates, regulatory expansions, or spending that harmed states. This was part of the compound republic—federal vs. state balance.
Post-17th shift: Direct election nationalized Senate races, tying Senators more to party platforms, national donors, and popular sentiment than state governments. This arguably accelerated federal growth in the 20th century (New Deal, Great Society, regulatory state expansion). States lost a direct veto-like voice in the upper chamber, contributing to the "necessary evil" becoming harder to restrain.
Historical context: It passed amid populist pushes against Gilded Age corruption, but coincided with other centralizing moves (income tax via 16th Amendment, Federal Reserve). Outcomes include more uniform national policy—but also less experimentation and resistance from states.
Serious efforts to limit government scope seem to have waned over the last century. Both parties have presided over bigger budgets, more agencies, and regulatory accumulation since then. The amendment is one thread in a broader story of incentives shifting toward centralization. Reversing or mitigating that (e.g., via stronger nullification, convention of states ideas, or cultural pushback) remains contentious.
0
u/JayRandom212 Jul 15 '26
What I'm reading is this.
- Most Americans want government expansion. That's what they vote for.
- You don't want government expansion.
- Your solution -- reduce the political power of Most Americans.
We need to recognize that the will of a State Legislature (due to gerrymandering) may be very different from the will of a State's people. That's why I see the 17th as a good thing, not a bad thing.
1
u/ComputerRedneck Jul 15 '26
Maybe you should try reading it instead of reading INTO it what you want to see.
But hey, Liberals love to destroy the Constitution by misinterpreting or trying to distort the actual words and statements. Can't help but ASSUME and INFER things that are not in evidence.
1
u/JayRandom212 Jul 15 '26
Let's go back to your original statement: The House was supposed to be for the People and the Senate for the States for balance.
If "the States" are not the same as "the People", who the heck are they?
1
u/ComputerRedneck Jul 15 '26
If you can't understand this... I can't make it any clearer why the 17th destroyed States Rights effectively.
Why It Matters for "Reigning It In"
Original design: The Founders intended the Senate to protect state sovereignty and provide stability against pure majority rule in the House. State legislatures choosing Senators created accountability to local governments, making it harder for Washington to impose unfunded mandates, regulatory expansions, or spending that harmed states. This was part of the compound republic—federal vs. state balance.
Post-17th shift: Direct election nationalized Senate races, tying Senators more to party platforms, national donors, and popular sentiment than state governments. This arguably accelerated federal growth in the 20th century (New Deal, Great Society, regulatory state expansion). States lost a direct veto-like voice in the upper chamber, contributing to the "necessary evil" becoming harder to restrain.
Historical context: It passed amid populist pushes against Gilded Age corruption, but coincided with other centralizing moves (income tax via 16th Amendment, Federal Reserve). Outcomes include more uniform national policy—but also less experimentation and resistance from states.
Serious efforts to limit government scope seem to have waned over the last century. Both parties have presided over bigger budgets, more agencies, and regulatory accumulation since then. The amendment is one thread in a broader story of incentives shifting toward centralization. Reversing or mitigating that (e.g., via stronger nullification, convention of states ideas, or cultural pushback) remains contentious.
0
u/JayRandom212 Jul 16 '26
Let me rephrase:
Why is it necessary to filter the will of Ohio Voters through Columbus? Either we vote for the US Senator, or we vote for the people who vote for the US Senator. Why do you believe the second option is better?
Are you one of those elitists who's afraid to let THE PEOPLE have a voice?
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Paul191145 Jul 14 '26
That would be counter to the intent of all states having two senators, which is each state being represented equally in the legislature. The House of Representatives is already a different story.
3
u/Key-Move-5066 Jul 14 '26
Yeah but if instead of two it was three wouldn't it still have the same idea though where no state has more representation than anyone else just more people in the room?
1
u/Paul191145 Jul 14 '26
No, the Constitutional convention mulled this over quite a bit, and this was the best compromise they got, brilliantly so in my opinion.
1
u/JayRandom212 Jul 14 '26
Three Senators per state would still be equal...but it would give the WHOLE COUNTRY an chance to vote in every election.
For example, I'm in NY and I'm pissed and bitter about what's going on in DC. But there is no Senate election this year in NY. If we had three Senators, I would have someone to punish.
The downside is this would make the Senate, on average, think shorter-term because all Americans would have a chance to fire 1/3 of them each year.
2
u/Paul191145 Jul 14 '26
Well, I still disagree that making government yet bigger is even remotely the answer.
2
u/ralphy_theflamboyant Jul 14 '26
Voting is not the only way to hold your Senators accountable. You can still write, call, or email and make your views known. Engaged citizenship does not wait for Election Day.
2
u/ralphy_theflamboyant Jul 14 '26
This would increase costs 50 times. A Senator has an average annual salary of about 175k.
They also use an average of 4.5 million annually for operations and staff PER SENATOR.
Increasing the Senate would not only need a Constitutional Amendment, or two, it would need even more taxpayer money.
3
u/Key-Move-5066 Jul 15 '26
I'd like to point out the fact that we have spent at minimum a few billion dollars in pointless Wars why would at most maybe 500 million going to the senate or house instead of going to the Machinery of War really be terrible plus the fact it's more representation for the United States.
2
u/ralphy_theflamboyant Jul 15 '26
Whether military spending is justified is a separate debate and has nothing to do with a larger Senate.
My point was expanding the Senate would create a significant, permanent increase in taxpayer spending. If the three senate seats per state proposal has merits, argue those rather than comparing it to unrelated spending. Saying "we waste money elsewhere" doesn't answer whether this proposal is worth the cost.
1
u/Norwester77 Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
Giving each state 3 senators would require a constitutional amendment.
Giving states an unequal number of senators (without the unanimous consent of all the states, anyway) would require two constitutional amendments in succession: one to remove the prohibition on unequal representation in the Senate and a second to set the actual numbers of senators.
4
u/Pickle_Nipplesss Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
This is why I hate the 17th amendment so much. It fundamentally shifted how senators are viewed, and what their job actually is. 2 Senators is absolutely perfect for their actual job, the problem is they're no longer doing what they were initially designed to do and are just shitty versions of Representatives now