QUORA: ‘Should we amend the US Constitution to allow one US Senator to be selected by the state government and one US Senator to be selected by the residents of the state?’

 QUORA *: ‘Should we amend the US Constitution to allow one US Senator to be selected by the state government and one US Senator to be selected by the residents of the state?’

I posted this answer:

No. 

The checks and balances built into the Constitution by the Framers included tempering the tyranny of direct democracy. Senators were originally appointed by the elected legislators of the states, each legislator representing a small popular constituency from his sending district. Keep in mind that direct democracy, or populism, is the purpose of the House of Representatives, with whom the Senate must collaborate with.

The Congressional structure balances the two forms of democracy. Note that both senators and representatives derive from voters, but in different ways. Populism has its voice in the House, while state legislatures have their voice in the Senate. The first is direct democracy, the second indirect. This setup has the added function of giving states a check on federal power. The Senate not only counter-balances the power of the popular vote. It balances the power between the state and federal governments.

The 17th Amendment was a mistake. The Amendment suggested above would be a step in the right direction. But it still waters down the power of the Senate. We should simply repeal the 17th Amendment.

Related Reading:

QUORA *: ‘What do you think of the fact that California has 2 senators to represent 40 million citizens while 23 smaller states have 46 senators to represent 40 million citizens?’

Federalist # 10, 47,  51, 63--James Madison

 

James Madison and the Dilemmas of Democracy--Myron Magnet for City journal

 

Even under free, popularly elected governments, man’s God-given rights remain off-limits to state interference. Yes, the “will of the majority” ultimately rules, “but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority,” and such a trespass on fundamental rights is as illegitimate as the arbitrary will of an absolute monarch. Any rulers who “overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people”—even popularly elected rulers carrying out the will of the majority—“exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants,” differing from “the Inquisition . . . only in degree.” A democratic tyranny may seem a contradiction in terms, but it can be all too real.

 

Voting Rights are Not the ‘Most Fundamental Right’—or Even a Fundamental Right

 

The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty by Timothy Sandefur

* [Quora is a social media website founded by two former Facebook employees. According to Wikipedia:

Quora is a question-and-answer website where questions are created, answered, edited and organized by its community of users. The company was founded in June 2009, and the website was made available to the public on June 21, 2010.[3]Quora aggregates questions and answers to topics. Users can collaborate by editing questions and suggesting edits to other users' answers.[4]

You can also reply to other users’ answers.]