In the United States, every citizen has — technically —
the right to have their voice represented in Congress.
But not every vote is equal.
Take a look at this:
This is the population of California, the biggest in the country.
And this is the population of Wyoming, the smallest.
But in the U.S. Senate, this is how many representatives they each have: two.
California actually has the same population
as these 22 states combined.
Meaning that while these 39 million people have two senators,
these 39 million people get 44.
While the presidential election always takes up the most attention,
the Senate is where a president’s policies and laws can be passed or blocked.
This is the first part in our series looking at you versus the system.
We'll be diving into how American political and financial systems
work against you and, sometimes, your vote.
So let's look at why the U.S. Senate is the way it is,
and what can be done to make it more fair.
The federal government is divided into the executive, judicial and legislative branches.
Laws are passed here, in the two houses of Congress.
The House of Representatives has 435 members,
each one representing around the same number of people across the country.
As we’ve seen though, the Senate has only 100 members:
two per state, regardless of how many people live in those states.
This system was designed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787,
where the U.S. Constitution was drawn up.
The main point of contention at the convention
in terms of representation
was whether the legislature would reflect sort of population differences
between the larger and the smaller states, or whether all the states would be represented equally.
So they came up with a compromise, two legislatures:
one to represent the people, and one to represent the states.
So the larger states get more representation in the House
and the smaller states get less.
And then they created the second body.
The U.S. Senate is, the principle is
That makes sense when you think about how back then, the political divide was between states,
not political parties like it is today.
One of the biggest problems is malapportionment. That is the extent to which the representatives
represent the same number of people.
And the U.S. Senate is actually the most malapportioned legislative body on the face of the earth.
That malapportionment is also demographic.
The smallest, most overrepresented states are whiter,
while the larger, more underrepresented states are more ethnically diverse.
And that has real consequences because the Senate passes laws, and it confirms presidential nominees
including cabinet members, ambassadors and — importantly — Supreme Court justices.
But we’ll get to that in a bit. For now, think about this:
If you add up the population of the 26 smallest states, and they can control 52 seats in the Senate.
That represents 18% of the population, right?
So it's possible for, you know, a political majority to emerge in the Senate
that represents less than one-fifth of the American people.
Basically, you can win a majority in the Senate while only winning a minority of voters nationally.
And that has a big effect on how the U.S. is governed.
This era that we're in where we have really strong partisanship means that the Senate can be a place
where a political minority sort of clings to power and thwarts progress
that maybe the political majority would like to make.
That’s why popular progressive policy ideas like the Green New Deal, a wealth tax, legalizing marijuana,
a $15 an hour minimum wage, free college and so on have so much trouble becoming law.
So whether Joe Biden or Donald Trump wins the presidential election in 2020,
the way they would govern will be shaped by who controls the Senate.
But the Senate doesn’t just grant a minority blocking power over legislation
and give more weight to some people’s votes over others.
It denies some Americans any say at all.
Washington, DC’s license plates say “Taxation Without Representation,”
and with good reason.
DC has just over 700,000 residents — more than Wyoming and Vermont,
and just a few less than Alaska and North Dakota.
Puerto Rico, meanwhile, is home to more than 3 million Americans.
That’s more than the population of 20 different states.
But the two territories have not been granted statehood,
meaning the total number of U.S. Senators for DC and Puerto Rico is zero.
And the Senate has one more rule that's used to check popular policy ideas:
Almost every bill needs a supermajority of 60 votes to pass.
It’s not enough to have more votes than the other side. You need a lot more votes.
The supermajority requirements in the U.S. Senate
I think breed a lot of cynicism and hopelessness about American politics.
Because frequently you see, either Democrats or Republicans, they take the presidency,
they take the House and they take the Senate, and they still can't get anything done
because it's very rare for Democrats or Republicans to control 60 votes in the U.S. Senate.
Now, let’s step back to this:
Unlike the president or Congress, Supreme Court judges aren't elected. They're appointed for life
by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Their decisions shape laws on voting rights, the right of workers to unionize,
reproductive rights, who can finance elections.
That’s why in 2016, the Republican-controlled Senate wouldn’t let President Obama nominate
Merrick Garland, his candidate for the Supreme Court.
This kept a Supreme Court seat vacant,
and that strategy paid off when
Trump became president and nominated conservative judge Neil Gorsuch for the open position.
The Senate – still controlled by Republicans – confirmed Gorsuch, and then the following year
confirmed Brett Kavanaugh.
Following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Amy Coney Barrett is likely to become the
third conservative justice to join the Supreme Court under President Trump.
That would cement the court's conservative character for decades to come.
So we’ve established that the Senate doesn't count everyone's vote equally,
shuts out millions of Americans, can be controlled by a small minority of voters,
has a built-in mechanism for blocking popular legislation,
and can, through the Supreme Court, shape laws far into the future.
So does it have to exist?
Abolishing the Senate would require a rewrite of the Constitution,
meaning the Senate would need to vote to end itself. Unlikely.
But there are other things that can be done to make it more fair.
For example, there’s nothing in the Constitution that says Senate bills need a supermajority.
That rule can be changed by a simple majority vote in the Senate itself.
The rule still exists because both parties are sort of looking at the future and thinking like,
well, the next time I'm in the minority, I'd like to be able to block the majority from doing anything.
And just personally, I feel just like a healthier dynamic for our democracy is like,
let's compete and try to beat each other in the elections.
But then if we lose, you know, the other party gets to govern.
Another improvement would be granting DC and Puerto Rico statehood.
In 2020, the House actually passed a bill to make DC the 51st state,
but with any future DC Senators likely to be Democrats,
that bill is unlikely to get through a Republican-controlled Senate for now.
David Faris actually wrote a book with these and other more radical solutions.
I have a proposal to break California into seven pieces, all of which would be Democratic leaning,
presumably would produce 14 Democratic Senators instead of two out of California.
But it would also lessen the difference between
California and Wyoming in terms of the voting power of the citizens.
You could do that to Texas, you could do that to New York.
Now breaking up states would require those states to first accept the idea, which seems impossible.
But that might change when people realize the Senate’s inequality is actually getting a lot worse.
By 2040, 70% of the population will live in just 16 states.
This problem, this malapportionment problem in the Senate is only going to get worse
because people seem to be migrating towards the larger states.
And so a problem that we feel acutely today — and it's a big problem in our politics —
actually will get significantly worse over time.