Why don't we amend the US Constitution to allow for only ONE Senator per state?

Question

As it stands, each state has 2% of the total Senate votes.

If your two Senators DISAGREE, then your state has 0% representation on that vote.

Look up sometime how often YOUR state had NO effect on the outcome of a critical bill.

Then there is the enormous savings in Senate staffers and salaries, more working space available, less incentive for pork projects, and with the smaller committees, more individual accountability for each senator.

If one is insufficient, why TWO, why not...seven?

Answer 1

we'd be better of sticking to the original constitution than worrying about how to change it

Answer 2

While this idea sounds good on the surface...your reasoning is interesting, there are at least three reasons why this should not happen.

1-Originally, the issue was small state versus big state power in the federal government.  Small states, like Delaware and Rhode Island, did not want to be controlled by big states like New York and Georgia, by having two senators it is easier for that single state to muster authority on issues of importance to that single state.  Back then there were only 26 senators, and having two from your little state amounted to a much higher percentage of the total.

2-The Constitution require super majorities for many issues.  Cloture, veto, and impeachment (judicial or executive) are just a few.  If we lessen the number of Senators, this number would correspondingly be smaller, and then government work would slow way down.  Primarily because of political mangling of the process when one party wants to retaliate against another.

3-In large states, like CA, there is a need for better cross state representation of issues.  Farming interests are not the same as metropolitan issues, are not the same as industrial sector issues.  Each senator represents different constituencies.  Even though they might vote to cancel each other out, their constituencies want certain legislation to protect their interests introduced, which would be supported by other senators with similar constituencies form other states. By having two senators the legislative agenda is expanded to include more of these political ideologies.

How's that?

Answer 3

In Colorado, we have one intelligent competent senator (Democrat) and one fascist nitwit senator (republican).  This way, the fascist nitwit's vote is cancelled out.

Answer 4

First, amending the Constitution is a very difficult process.  This would never pass, mainly because it is a solution looking for a problem.

Second, the concept driving the formation of the Senate is equal representation of each state regardless of size.  The larger states need at least two senators to handle everyone's concerns and the smaller states deserve equal representation.

Why not seven?  Because the concept behind having an upper house of government is based upon the British model of a smaller group of legislators with a wider perspective than the lower house.  A larger Senate would just slow up the legislative process...who among us believes this is what we need?  (It's slow enough already.)

Answer 5

US Constitution is one of the few Constitutions that has been least amended. For them, the Constitution is a holy cow and cannot be tinkered with for flimsy reason. Resort to statutory measures to remedy the situation.

Answer 6

The Constitution can be changed in two ways.  One:  by Constitutional Convention, which requires 2/3 of the states to demand one.  Two: an amendment gets presented in Congress, The House must pass the bill, the Senate must pass the bill, the President must sign the bill, 3/4 of the states have to approve the amendment.

It ain't gonna happen.