There is quite a bit of research which suggests simple proportional representation voting (House versus Senate) can lead to problems. Have a look at Amy Chua's new book World On Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability.

There was a column in Newsweek about 20 years ago, when there was talk of rewriting the constitution, that stated that a re-write of the document in todays environment would be like the Three Stooges re-writing "Gone With The Wind'. I concur.

This generation has been steeped in revisionist history for so long that very few people have a real understanding of what the foundations of this country were based on or were designed to protect or prevent.

As I am sure you know the reason the bi-cameral form of legislature was enacted was to balance the power of the large states with the interests of the smaller states. Legislation has to clear both chambers in order to make it to the Presidents desk for signature.

While I believe Senators get BIG FAT HEADS too often, they insure that power is balanced. The senate does not abolish representative government, as both big and small states get to select their "representatives" to both chambers. Keep in mind I currently live in Texas, and hail originally from Florida (two of the biggest) as well as having lived in New Mexico (one of the smallest, with only 3 US Reps)for almost 10 years. So I am not arguing for the senate from the view of the benefit to me. Clearly, you think that living in Texas I would be in favor of your idea but I am not.

The founding fathers, George Mason in this case, were wise enough to balance the interests of both ends of the spectrum against one another in order to achieve a consensus, voted on by representatives from both houses, and having to gain signature by the President, in addition to withstanding legal challenges that find their way to the Supreme Court.

I would say the bigger problem is that while we live in a democratic-republic, not a pure democracy where the rights of those who find themselves in the minority are regularly trampled under foot, too few Americans participate in representative government come election day. Argue all you want about more representative government, the bottom line is that more people need to insure that the representatives that are being selected are in concert with other voters. Representative government is a participatory exercise in government and if the citizens don't choose to participate, no change in structure will make it more representative of the population.

I agree that too few people participate, but let's examine why that is the case. I think the most common reason - at least the most common reason that I have heard - is that people don't think their participation makes a difference. I suggest that that feeling arises from our system of government, as formed by the Constitution. (Also, times are good. People tend not to think about governmewnt, politics, or the public weal when there are no crises to contend with.) Political structures, and thus, power relationships, are built into the system. Until this is changed, people will continue to feel un- or under-represented. And, of course, we (the US I mean) are growing increasingly less tolerant of each other's ideas, resulting in an exacerbation of the problem and the creatino of new, much more serious ones.

I also agree that the founders had some good thinkers among them, and that they designed the bicameral system to create a balance of power among the sundry states. But again I'd like to stop a moment and examine their motives. As I recall, the reasoning was largely to ensure that the slave states could continue to maintain slavery unhindered by the powerful, largely abolitionist Northern states. The inherent conflicts this structure left unresolved resulted, ultimately, in the Civil War. Many issues, unresolved even by that horrible circumstance, remain unresolved to this day.

I say let's take on our historical conflicts, face them head on, and recreate a Constitution that actually gives us representative government.

A good idea! State wide elections give the power to the extremely wealthy and those willing to play for the pay of those interests willing to invest thousands in order to reap millions from the federal larder. We might consider a four year term, with half elected every two years. This would provide continuity and reduce the money race. The employment of instant runoff voting would bring in candidates with different positions that would give voters a greater choice without wasting their vote and have winners getting majorities without conducting runoff elections which are expensive and time consuming.

lindahljack - Your analysis doesn't lead logically to your conclusion that we need to "take on our historical conflicts ... and recreate a Constitution that actually gives us representative government." Semantically speaking, if we "recreate" said Constitution you're implying that the one we have DID at one point provide representative government. You don't at any point explain that it may have and why it might no longer, nor do you provide a solution to this. How best do people select representatives if not by voting? To counter the complaint that not enough people participate, of what good is compulsory voting? Isn't not voting a vote in and of itself?

"As I recall, the reasoning was largely to ensure that the slave states could continue to maintain slavery unhindered by the powerful, largely abolitionist Northern states." If you truly believe that the principles of federalism and separation of powers lay exclusively in the desire to maintain slavery, then I have to agree with finsfanintexas -- people are taught too much revisionist history these days.

That all said, do I think the current structure is perfect? Not at all. I think we moved further away from perfect with the 17th amendment that made Senators popularly elected. This has worked only to erode our understanding and appreciation for federalism (as Senators were originally appointed by state legislatures) and, in an age where mass media is the dominant medium for the exchange of ideas, House races are often forsaken for coverage of the President and Senate in Presidential election years, and for bad sitcoms in "off" years.

My solution? Repeal the 17th amendment. A system of government like ours is as representative or non-representative as people want it to be. Now as in the beginning, you have to work if you want to make your voice heard. No other structure will guarantee the rights of the minority while allowing the majority to rule as in a democratic republic...

I'm not advocating nondemocratic government. Just the opposite! Whether Senators are elected by the people or appointed by state legislatures, the fact that there are 2 per state defeats the ideal of representative government at the federal level.

The Senate was created to "solve" the "problem" of the big states vs. the little states, and for that purpose the structure has been successful. I should only have to mention the name Robert Byrd to make that point clear! I don't know if I would argue that the slavery issue was the "exclusive" reason (I don't think I did) for the creation of the Senate, but maintaining slavery was, at the time, certainly one of the primary concerns of the small states. Any proposed structure that would enhance their relative position among the states was certainly something they could (and did) support.

Keep in mind that there were only 13 states, and some of them wanted desperately to be sovereign unto themselves. The situation now is much MUCH different and, to my mind lo these 200+ years hence, invites a revisiting of some of the basic assumptions.

I would suggest that the Civil War was such a revisiting. I'd like to continue the work started in the mid-1800s, although in a more thoughtful manner if possible!

Sorry to burst everyone's bubble...but the Constitution can not be merely amended to change the representation of the Senate.

Article 5, which describes the procedures for amending it, ends with this clause "...and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

That means that we can amend the Consitution to say, have each state have 3 senators or 1 senator for EACH state, but not have one state have more than another, unless ALL 50 states agree to the amendment (which won't happen, folks).

The only realistic way to do it would be to have a whole constiutional convention that trashes the entire Constitution and creates a new on from scratch.

I would like to Change/Abolish the Senate, and have its members elected nation wide a the 100 most popular candidates.

Rhe senate was originally organized for a number of purposes:

1) To provide a Check so that legislation would require more diversity to be passed. -- GOOD--

2) To protect the smaller states against a peopular only government. --REASONABLE--

3) To represent the "shared" interests of geographic groups. --NO LONGER VALID--

The reason that I'd like to Change/Abolish the current Senate is that I don't see the states as being representative of shared communities.

Though I believe that no significant changes will be done, as the small states effectively have veto on such changes, as they do re any electrorial college changes,

I would like to keep the Senate but turn it into a 100 most popular representatives. I think that this might move it toward a body that represented interests and not local popuations or obsolete state boundaries.

Thus the "Green" party could propose a small number of candidates where as the "Democratic" party could propose a large number. The Greens might elect one or two to represent them where as the main stream would "spread" out their vote, thus electing some but not all.

Note: I am not sure if this is a comment or a "new" idea?