“A Revolution in the principles and practice of Governments”

Once upon a time...

John Locke wrote a book that changed the world. Not immediately. And not as much as it could have or should have.

But a book that changed the world, nonetheless.

Prior to the publication of Locke’s Second Treatise of Government in December 1689, political philosophers had generally considered a monarchy or an aristocracy to be the best form of government. Socrates and Plato believed those who held power should be wise and virtuous and they considered wisdom and virtue to be extremely rare. Thomas Hobbes described life in the state of nature as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” and as “a war of every man against every man”. He argued that to escape this condition, people, seeking peace, should form a commonwealth by joining together under an “agreement or contract…by which they all renounced their rights” and “transferred” them to an absolute monarch.

John Locke had a more generous view of human nature.

A deeply spiritual man, he placed both individual liberty and political power within a moral framework informed by his theories regarding life in the state of Nature. He stated, as “self-evident” truths, that “all men by nature are equal”, endowed by God with natural rights to “life, health, liberty, (and) possessions”; that “the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom”, that “the consent of the people” is the only “lawful basis” for government; and that if and when “the ill designs of the rulers become visible…the people are at liberty to provide for themselves, by erecting a new (government), differing from the other, by the change of persons, or form, or both, as they shall find it most (effective) for their safety and good.” [All emphases in original.]

If these ideas sound familiar, it’s because they were immortalized by Thomas Jefferson, who was clearly inspired by Locke as he wrote the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which is a concise summary of Locke’s ideas:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all (people) are created equal,

that (we) are endowed by (our) Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among (Us),

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,

it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form,

as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

[Pronouns altered to be more inclusive.]

These ideas were revolutionary.

Demonstrably so. They inspired the American Revolution - a war that Thomas Paine later called “a Revolution in the principles and practice of Governments”. They’ve been inspiring people ever since. And yet -

The political revolution inspired by Locke’s ideas remains incomplete.

Despite broad support for these democratic ideals and general agreement among people around the world that democracy is not only the best form of government, but the only good form of government, the “Revolutions” inspired by the ideas of John Locke and the Declaration of Independence remains woefully incomplete. The world has yet to see Locke’s vision of a Perfect Democracy fully realized in any nation. Less than half the countries in the world today have democratic governments and the versions of democracy in place in more than half of those ostensibly democratic countries are deeply flawed.

The United States is among the nations with a deeply flawed version of democracy.

Our government is not nearly as democratic as many Americans believe it to be. Our government has taken on many powers without “the consent of the governed.” Our government does not always protect our rights to Liberty or to pursue Happiness. In its failure to respond appropriately to the existential threat posed by global warming, our government is not doing all it could do and should do to protect our right to Life, especially the right to Life of younger Americans who will live long enough to experience the increasingly severe consequences of our government’s failure to respond to the climate crisis.

The primary reason for this sad state of affairs is that -

Democracy has, and has always had, some false friends and true enemies.

The false friends and true enemies of democracy have actively, relentlessly, and for the most part successfully, sought to prevent people from developing a shared understanding of democracy or even agree upon a clear definition of democracy.

The false friends and true enemies of democracy among the framers of our Constitution adopted numerous antidemocratic provisions, most of which remain embedded in the body of our Constitution. The false friends and true enemies of democracy have consistently managed to prevent more democratic methods of constituting legislative bodies from being adopted. They have managed to erect barriers to participation in civic affairs, especially with regard to voting, for citizens who are likely to vote in ways that put the common interest above special interests. They have succeeded in creating the illusion of democracy in America, while convincing many of the citizens of America that our government is a true democracy.

Two and a half centuries after America inspired the world by sharing John Locke’s ideas in our Declaration of Independence, we need to rededicate ourselves to the democratic ideals upon which our nation was founded. To ensure our Safety and Happiness, we need to exercise our right to alter the form of our government. We need to unite in support of the reforms necessary to make America a Perfect Democracy.

We need to unite in support of the reforms necessary to make America a Perfect Democracy.

The first step in making America a Perfect Democracy is for us to agree upon a clear definition of democracy and develop a shared understanding of democracy.

Democracy has rarely been “properly understood, fully accepted, and honestly applied.”

In 1871, two centuries after Locke published his Second Treaties of Government and a century after America’s Declaration of Independence, Walt Whitman, in his book Democratic Vistas, commented on the fact that the world had yet to see even a true democracy, let alone a Perfect Democracy:

“Democracy is a word, the real gist of which still sleeps, quite unawakened. It is a great word whose history, I suppose, remains unwritten, because that history has yet to be enacted.”

Whitman’s assertion that the history of democracy “has yet to be enacted” might be confusing to anyone who was taught in school that ancient Athens was "The Cradle of Democracy" and that America sparked a rebirth of democracy in 1776 with our Declaration of Independence and subsequent victory in the American Revolution. Whitman clearly believed that neither ancient Athens nor America at its founding were true democracies.

His statement that “the real gist” of democracy “still sleeps, quite unawakened”, implied that most people, at the time he wrote, did not truly understand what makes a government a democracy. The same could be said of many people today. Democracy is a word that is often used a bit too casually and sometimes deliberately misused.

Walt Whitman (1819-1892)

It is now more than three centuries since Locke wrote his Second Treatise of Government and two and a half centuries since America’s Declaration of Independence, and the world has yet to see Locke’s vision of a Perfect Democracy fully realized in any nation. Less than half the countries in the world today have democratic governments and the versions of democracy in place in more than half of those countries are seriously flawed. Sadly, America is among the countries with a flawed version of democracy.

The primary reason that democracy has failed to take root and develop in most countries and is seriously flawed in many countries where it is in place, is that democracy has, and has always had, some false friends and true enemies who have actively and relentlessly sought to undermine democracy by preventing people from developing a shared understanding of democracy or even agree upon a clear definition of democracy. They have, for the most part, been successful. Even in America.

The work of making a community, state, or nation a Perfect Democracy begins with Politically Active Citizens agreeing on a clear definition of democracy and developing a shared understanding of the elements that make a government a true democracy, as well as the additional characteristics needed to make a government a Perfect Democracy.

Defining Democracy

George Orwell addressed the problem of defining democracy in his essay “Politics and the English Language” (1946). He made the point that "the great enemy of clear language is insincerity”, resulting from “a gap between one's real and one's declared aims”. In that context, he identified some political words that have been “abused” to the point that they have “several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another”. Regarding democracy, he said:

"In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic, we are praising it: consequently, the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning."

It is true that democracy has come to mean different things to different people but attempts to define democracy are not “resisted from all sides” – only by the defenders of other kinds of regimes – the false friends and true enemies of democracy.

George Orwell (1902-1950

For anyone who is sincere and feels no need to hide their real aims, defining “democracy” is a simple matter. The word is derived from the Greek word demokratia, which was formed from two other Greek words: demos (meaning “the people”) and kratia (which means “have power”). A democratic government, therefore, is one in which the people have power. Another Greek word – kratos, which means “to rule” – is also relevant here. In a democracy, the people rule.

Despite the continued efforts of the false friends and true enemies of democracy to sow confusion, there has been some agreement regarding the definition of democracy. Unitarian minister and abolitionist Theodore Parker, in his sermon “The effect of slavery on the American people”, which he delivered on July 4, 1858, stated that “Democracy is direct self-government, over all the people, by all the people, for all the people.” Abraham Lincoln’s law partner, William Herndon, shared a copy of that sermon with Lincoln, who made note of that phrase and later incorporated a slightly modified version of it in his Gettysburg Address, famously describing the government of the United States as “government of the people, by the people, for the people”. Although Lincoln did not use the word democracy in his Gettysburg address, he popularized this definition.

We can define democracy even more succinctly. Government of the people is a given. The people of every nation are governed. Government being “for the people” is rare. Most governments around the world throughout history have served the private interests of a ruling class or powerful elite rather than the common interest. If we want government of the people to be government for the people, we must have government by the people.

DEMOCRACY IS GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE.

Armed with a clear definition of democracy, we can turn our attention to developing -

A Shared Understanding of Democracy

Although a great many books, articles, and essays have been written about democracy, John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government has long been, and remains, the best resource for developing a true understanding of democracy. No one has done a better job - before or since - of describing the essential elements of a true democracy.

The word “democracy” appears only twice in Locke’s Second Treatise. Once, to clarify that a “commonwealth” is not necessarily a democracy and, most importantly, in describing majority rule as the essential element that puts the “form” of a “perfect democracy” in place.

Majority Rule

Locke’s support for majority rule was unequivocal. The word “majority” appears frequently throughout his Second Treatise of Government.

Locke asserted that “the majority (have) the whole power of the community naturally in them” because “every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation, to everyone of that society, to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded by it.”

Numerous other political philosophers have since concurred, including some of the most prominent figures among America’s Founders. Thomas Jefferson stated that, “It is my principle that the will of the majority should always prevail.” James Madison wrote that “The vital principle of Republican Government is…the will of the majority.”

Locke also identified two other elements of a true democracy that flow from majority rule: an equal vote (or equal representation) for every citizen and the supremacy of the legislative power. Our team is made up of licensed therapists, social workers, and other mental health professionals who are passionate about supporting mental health and wellness in our community.

An Equal Vote and Equal Representation

It is impossible to accurately determine the will of the majority unless every citizen has an equal vote and equal representation. Locke stressed the importance of maintaining “a state…of equality wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another."

If the people decide to delegate the power to enact laws, he emphasized that “it being the interest as well as intention of the people, to have a fair and equal representative; whoever brings it nearest to that, is an undoubted friend to, and establisher of the government.”

The Supremacy of the Legislative Power

The supremacy of the legislative power is established and maintained by having the laws that are made by the people executed by “officers of their own appointing”. Locke stated that “there can be but one supreme power, which is the legislative, to which all the rest are and must be subordinate.”

A True Democracy and a Perfect Democracy

The “real gist” of democracy is that a government is controlled by the governed. All the members of a community, state, or nation who are to be governed by the laws that are made, and who wish to be politically active, must be able to participate in the decision-making process as major political decisions are made.

Majority rule, an equal vote and equal representation for all, and the supremacy of the legislative power make a government a true democracy. But those elements, in and of themselves, are no guarantee of good government. Several additional elements must be in place to make a government a good government - a Perfect Democracy.

A country that is truly governed by the people is a true democracy. A government in which the people rule and a majority of the citizens who choose to be politically active are well-educated, well-informed, and, most importantly, respect the rights of others, is a Perfect Democracy.

The term Perfect Democracy is normally used as a synonym for direct democracy. Although direct democracy is naturally closer to perfection than representative democracy, direct democracy can be less than perfect. The ability of citizens to participate fully in the deliberative process leading up to a referendum may be limited. Considerably more money may be spent in support of one position on an issue than is spent in support of the opposing position. Ballot language can be deliberately or unintentionally misleading. Voters may be given limited options on issues that naturally have more than one or two possible choices.

Due to the complexities involved in governing a modern nation, a seamless combination of direct democracy and representative democracy is necessary to make a government a Perfect Democracy in the 21st century.

The argument could be made that for a government to be a Perfect Democracy, in the strictest sense of the term, all Politically Active Citizens must be well-educated, well-informed, and respectful of the rights of others. However, just as Locke pointed out that democracies act upon “the consent of the majority” because “it is impossible” to obtain the “the consent of every individual”, we may bestow the honorific of “Perfect Democracy” on a government where most of the citizens who choose to be politically active are well-educated, well-informed, respect the rights of others, and therefore, consistently govern in the common interest.

Perfecting Democracy in America

Although referendums on democracy and our rights are rare in America, and the results may occasionally be closer than we (the true friends of democracy and liberty) might like, when we are given an opportunity to vote directly, democracy and freedom nearly always win. With that being the case, it is reasonable to assume that -

All we need to do to make America a Perfect Democracy is make America a true democracy.

To make America a Perfect Democracy, we need to enact the legislation included in the Democracy Agenda.

The Democracy Agenda

Prioritizing Pro-Democracy Reforms

On May 31, 2018, a column by David Brooks was published in the New York Times under the title “One Reform to Save America”. He made the point that “Right now our politics is heading in a truly horrendous direction — with vicious, binary political divisions overlapping with and exacerbating historical racial divisions.” He then stated that, “If we’re going to have just one structural reform to head off that nightmare, ranked-choice voting in multimember districts is the one to choose.”

Since 2018 our politics has continued in an ever more horrendous direction. Public discussion of issues is marred by a tsunami of misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies. Deep fakes generated by Artificial Intelligence is making it ever more difficult to differentiate between reality and deception. Civic engagement is made unappealing by toxic levels of anger, fear, and hatred. Politically Active Citizens are frustrated by the inability to get legislation that addresses the problems we face as a nation enacted despite the fact such legislation has the support of a majority of Americans. Democracy and our rights are under attack. The false friends and true enemies of democracy seem to be closing in for the kill. We need to defend our democracy, but we need to do more than just defend democracy. When it comes to defending democracy, an adage common to sports and warfare applies: “The best defense is a good offense.”

It will take more than one reform to “save America” or make America a Perfect Democracy. Fortunately, we do not have to choose just one reform. We do, however, need to prioritize the reforms in the Democracy Agenda to maximize our chances of success. And while Ranked-Choice Voting with multimember districts would be a significant improvement over our present method of electing members of Congress, state legislatures, and local legislative bodies, it is not the best choice for the first reform we should enact. There are two reforms that are simpler and yet far more powerful: Personal Representation Amendments and Perfect Democracy Amendments.

Note: The exact nature and the details of the reforms that are needed to make a government a Perfect Democracy vary from state to state within the United States. The following is the Democracy Agenda the federal level.

Personal Representation through a system of Proxies

A government with a system of representation is only a “representative democracy” if all the elements of a true democracy are in place. Citizens must have equal representation and the will of a majority of the people must be reflected in the acts of representative assemblies.

The best way to perfect a system of representation is to implement a system of Personal Representation that allows every citizen who is eligible to vote to assign a proxy to any one member of each legislative body that governs them, and then allows each member of that legislative body to cast a number of votes equal to the number of proxies they have been assigned (plus one for themselves) on everything voted on in a legislature. Citizens should also be able to reassign their proxies at any time. That will allow Politically Active Citizens to vote (albeit indirectly) on every issue of concern to them

Implementing systems of Personal Representation will instantly transform Congress and state legislatures into truly democratic institutions and bring a system of representation as close as possible to being a Perfect Democracy.

Perfect Democracy Amendments

Direct democracy is sometimes called “pure democracy” or “perfect democracy” because it is far less susceptible to flaws and corruption. Referendums and the initiative are the two most common and most powerful forms of direct democracy. The initiative allows the people of a community, state, or nation to propose and enact legislation without the involvement or approval of a legislative body. Referendums give the people the ultimate power - to vote directly to determine whether proposed legislation is approved or rejected.

The details of Perfect Democracy Amendments will vary from state to state and at the federal level, but in general, will make it easier to call referendums and use the initiative in the states that already provide for them, and will extend the use of referendums and the initiative to the federal government and to the twenty-four states that do not yet have provisions for them.

The most obvious ways to make it easier to call referendums and use the initiative are by allowing citizens to “sign” petitions electronically (by submitting Statements of Support through Online Accounts for Politically Active Citizens) or by reducing the number of signatures required to call a referendum or put a proposal on the ballot.

Democracy is government by the people. Enacting Perfect Democracy Amendments will shift power to the people and make governments true democracies.

Ranked Choice Voting

As the name implies, Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is a method of voting that allows voters to cast votes for more than one candidate and rank their choices in order of their true preferences. If the candidate who is your first preference does not win, your vote is transferred to the candidate who is your second preference. If that candidate does not win, your vote is transferred to the candidate who is your third preference. Ranked Choice Voting not only gives voters more choices, it increases the chances that a candidate you support will be elected.

When used in an election where there is a single winner (an executive office, such as president, governor, et cetera, or for seats in a legislature with single-member districts) the tabulation method for RCV ensures that winning candidates have the support of a majority of the voters (at some level of preference) instead of just a plurality (the most votes, even if that is less than a majority). This is in harmony with the primary principle of democracy – majority rule.

Ranked Choice Voting is even more powerful when combined with multiple member districts or at-large elections for constituting legislative bodies because it results in proportional representation – with political parties or other collections of like-minded voters holding a percentage of the seats in a legislature equal to the percentage of the votes the top candidates from each party receive in an election. Legislatures with proportional representation more accurately reflect the will of the people – one of the primary principles of democracy.

In addition to eliminating wasted votes and the spoiler effect, research has shown that when combined with legislative districts of five or more members, Ranked Choice Voting neutralizes the effects of gerrymandering.

Ranked Choice Voting can also be used to give voters a range of choices when voting on legislation where that would appropriate (various dollar figures for minimum wage, et cetera).

Direct Election of the President (with RCV)

A majority of voters in America support replacing the Electoral College with direct election of the president by the people. That would be an improvement and would avert a potential constitutional crisis. Adding Ranked Choice Voting and all the benefits of RCV would be a major improvement.

A candidate who wins the most votes losing the election is blatantly undemocratic. It is time to abolish the Electoral College and move to direct election of the president and vice-president by the people. Including Ranked Choice Voting in the process will ensure that the winning candidate has the support of a majority of voters (at some level of preference).

Replacing the Electoral College with direct election of the president using Ranked Choice Voting will also avert a potential constitutional crisis.

Within the system that has been in place since 1804, if a minor party or independent candidate were to win enough electoral votes to prevent any candidate from winning a majority of the electoral votes, that would trigger the even more anti-democratic process provided for in the 12th Amendment. The House of Representatives would elect the president, with each state having a single vote, regardless of population. And the Senate would elect the vice-president through a similar method.

The only time that has happened, so far, was in the election of 1824. Andrew Jackson received a plurality, but not a majority, in both the popular vote and the Electoral College. Henry Clay, who came in fourth, was eliminated. He threw his support to John Quincy Adams (allegedly in exchange for being named Secretary of State – a deal that was labeled the “corrupt bargain”). Adams, who had finished second in both the popular vote and the Electoral College, became the president. Jackson had his revenge four years later, when he won the presidency.

We have, so far, avoided a repeat of what happened in 1824. If our luck runs out, it will trigger a serious constitutional crisis.

Amending our Constitution to provide for direct election of the president using ranked choice voting will not only give voters more choices, without triggering anti-democratic procedures, and ensure that the winning candidate has the support of a majority of voters (at some level of preference), it will also allow us to eliminate primary elections (saving a considerable amount of money.

Repeal the Uniform Congressional District Act

The Uniform Congressional District Act requires that all members of the U. S. House of Representatives be elected from single-member districts. Repealing the Uniform Congressional District Act is necessary to make Ranked Choice Voting with multiple member districts possible.

Research has shown that single-member districts contribute to gerrymandering, which effectively renders many citizens’ votes meaningless, requiring all members of the U. S. House to be elected from single-member districts violates the principle of an equal vote.

The federal government guarantees “a republican form of government” to the states in Article IV, Section 4. Single-member districts result in a form of government that is not “republican” (as defined by James Madison and others). To make state governments more “republican”, Congress should require multiple-member districts or at-large elections using selection by proxies or ranked choice voting in states with more than one representative in Congress and in state legislatures.

At the very least, Congress should repeal this act to enable states to neutralize the effects of gerrymandering and give voters more choices regarding who will represent them in Congress by electing representatives at-large or from multi-member districts using ranked choice voting.

Corporations are Not People

Corporations are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Corporations are not people. They are a form of business organization. The fact that five misguided, dark-robed Supreme Court Justices declared that corporations are people, with the same natural rights as human beings, does not make it so. The corporate form of business organization enables companies to reap enormous profits, grow very large, and become very powerful. We must prevent that power from being used to take control of our government.

Veto Referendums

Allowing one person (a president or a governor) to negate the votes of a sizable majority of the members of Congress or a state legislature, if support for a bill is even one vote short of the two-thirds super-majority in both the House and the Senate (as currently required to override a veto) is extremely undemocratic, violating the principle of majority rule.

In a true democracy, the role of a president or governor is to simply carry out (execute) the laws that have been enacted by the people and by the legislature. If we continue to allow a president or governor to veto legislation, to be consistent with the principle of majority rule, the legislature should be able to override a veto by a simple majority vote. We could also continue to allow presidents and governors to review legislation that has been enacted by the legislature, share their concerns, when they have concerns, and encourage the legislature to reconsider the legislation, but stop short of allowing presidents and governors to veto legislation.

In a true democracy, the power to veto legislation is properly vested in the people. Whenever it appears likely that Congress or a state legislature has enacted legislation that does not have the support of a majority of the people, veto referendums should be conducted, with every voter having a single vote, and the votes of a simple majority deciding whether legislation is approved or rejected. Calling veto referendums should be a simple and relatively easy process. The power to call a veto referendum could be shared with a super-minority of one-third or more of either house of a legislature (or a unicameral), the people (through the initiative), or a president or governor.

People already have the power to veto legislation by calling a veto referendum in some states. We should extend that power to the people of America and to the states that do not provide for veto referendums.

Shift the Power to Grant Pardons to Congress

Allowing one person to set aside convictions for crimes is a formula for corruption, placing too much power in a single person. Lord Acton's assertion that "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely" applies here.

The House of Representatives (both in Congress and in state legislatures) should have the power to grant pardons or commute sentences, by majority vote. (Ideally, within a system that includes Proxies for Citizens.)

Make Judicial Reviews Advisory

Supreme Court Justices should be able to share their opinions, but not unilaterally nullify acts of Congress.

The power of the Supreme Court to nullify acts of Congress that have been signed into law by the president is not included in the Constitution. The power of "Judicial Review" is a power the Supreme Court gave itself early in our nation's history. Allowing a handful of Supreme Court Justices to unilaterally "veto" legislation through "Judicial Review" makes the judicial branch supreme rather than the legislative power.

The Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Courts in the states should have the power to notify representative assemblies of their opinion with regard to legislation being "unconstitutional" and offer suggestions for how to address their concerns. Representative assemblies should have the option of addressing or ignoring those concerns by a majority vote of the members.

The Details of an Article V Constitutional Convention

Article V of the U. S. Constitution includes a provision for amendments to be proposed by means of a constitutional convention to be convened “on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States” but does not include any details regarding how delegates to that convention would be chosen or how the business of the convention is to be conducted. If an Article V Convention is called without those details already in place, it will precipitate an unnecessary and avoidable constitutional crisis.

Several separate campaigns are actively seeking to call a convention, each of them calling for competing limitations on the amendments that can be proposed or considered at a convention. Twenty-eight states have adopted resolutions calling for a convention. That is only six short of the number required. It is not clear if Congress is required to call a convention if there are different limitations in some of the resolutions or if states legislatures have the power to set limits on the amendments that can be proposed the delegates to an Article V Convention.

The delegates to the Federal Convention of 1787, immediately upon convening, decided to disregard the language in the resolution that called the convention limiting them to do proposing nothing more than revisions to the Articles of Confederation. The delegates to an Article V Convention could presumably do the same thing.

Our greatest blessing, as Americans, is that we can change the form of our government peacefully, using ballots instead of bullets. (Although the amendment process is among the most anti-democratic provisions in our Constitution.). An Article V Convention is likely to be the best means of enacting the amendments needed to remove the other anti-democratic provisions from our Constitution. Absent legislation detailing a democratic process for electing delegates and conducting the business of the convention, there is good reason to fear an Article V Convention. With a democratic process in place, there would be good reason to celebrate a convention.

This is another reform needed to avert a foreseeable constitutional crisis. It could be enacted as an amendment to the Constitution or as legislation.

Unicameral Legislatures

Most other democracies have moved to unicameral legislatures. It's time for us to do the same.

The U. S. Senate was designed to be an "elite" assembly (originally elected by state legislatures instead of directly by the people) to give the wealthy a check on the will of the people. In a true democracy, absent a desire to check or limit the will of the people, there is really no reason to have a bicameral (two chamber) legislature. Nebraska implemented a unicameral in 1937 through a statewide referendum. It has proven to be more efficient and saved the taxpayers a lot of money. We should make Congress and the legislatures in the other 49 states unicameral legislatures.

Most of the other democracies that have moved from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature have simply abolished their upper chambers. The primary obstacle to abolishing the U. S. Senate is that the normal amendment process would require a two-thirds super-majority in the Senate to propose the amendment that would abolish the Senate (and do away with the lucrative and prestigious positions to which they have been elected). A constitutional convention is, at present, the only other way to enact any amendment abolishing the Senate or merging it with the House.

A proposal to merge the House and Senate might get more support in the Senate if we retain the concept (and titles) of both senator and representative with senators having more power than representatives. That could be accomplished through a system of Personal Representation (with proxies) with the members of Congress who have been assigned the most proxies nationwide holding the office of senator and the members who hold the most proxies in each congressional district serving as representatives.

If we do not move to a unicameral Congress, we will need to find some other way to democratize the U. S. Senate.

The U. S. Senate is, in and of itself, the most undemocratic element in the form of our government, with equal representation for states resulting in grossly unequal representation for the people of the larger states. Equal representation for the states in the Senate was “The Great Compromise” between the larger, more populous states (that wanted representation to be based on population) and the smaller states (that wanted to retain the equal representation for each state that they enjoyed under the Articles of Confederation). It was an unfortunate compromise, made necessary because the small states threatened to leave the convention (and the union) if they were denied equal suffrage in one house of Congress.

At a minimum, we need to extend a system of Personal Representation (using proxies) to the Senate. That would make both the House of Representatives and the Senate considerably more reflective of the will of the people, which would presumably put an end to endless gridlock. It would also introduce an unnecessary redundancy. That might be necessary at least temporarily to get the necessary amendment enacted.

Any of these alternatives (abolishing the Senate, merging it with the U. S. House of Representatives to make Congress a unicameral legislature, or implementing a system of Personal Representation (with proxies) in the Senate will require a constitutional amendment.

Amendments merging the Senate with the House of Representatives should be also be adopted in state governments. The primary reason we have a Senate at the federal level was to appease the small states at the Federal Convention of 1787. Our legislatures are also modeled on Great Britain's. We don't need a Senate to block the will of the people. We need a Congress and state legislatures that reflect the will of the people.

Let’s give Alexander Hamilton the final word, “Bestowing representation on the basis of equal representation (for each state) rather than population contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority must prevail.” [Federalist Number 22.]

Next chapter: Democracy in Aermica?

Some of the material on this website is adapted from a soon to be published book: Government by the People: Perfecting Democracy in the 21st Century by Winston Apple.

This website is paid for by Winston Apple - as a private citizen.

Government by the People