US Senate elections from 2000 on under binomial representation

As far as I know, the reshuffling of the Senate wasn't a one-time deal in 1788, as new states entered the Union the Senate increased by two (in order to keep states' equality) the term for one of the new senators would be prorogued anyway, if they belong to different classes. Reshuffling, therefore, does not require a constitutional amendment.


Admitting Senators from new states does not prevent any existing senator from completing his/her term. This "reshuffle" does. Since the Constitution expressly gives each Senator a term of six years, altering the terms of any existing senators would require an Amendment.
 
Admitting Senators from new states does not prevent any existing senator from completing his/her term. This "reshuffle" does. Since the Constitution expressly gives each Senator a term of six years, altering the terms of any existing senators would require an Amendment.

Nonetheless, the new states must have equal representation of two senators in order to comply with the Constitution. It does not allow for a senator from a new state to have only two or four years, while the other serves the full six, by your own argument. If anything, OTL's procedure is unconstitutional!

However, an attachment to an alternate 24th Amendment could correct this.
 
Nonetheless, the new states must have equal representation of two senators in order to comply with the Constitution. It does not allow for a senator from a new state to have only two or four years, while the other serves the full six, by your own argument. If anything, OTL's procedure is unconstitutional!


Agreed, a case could be made for that. However, it is clearly the intent of the Constitution that the Senators be divided as evenly as possible between the three classes, so applying the priciple to new states could be taken as implied - and apparently has been.


However, an attachment to an alternate 24th Amendment could correct this.

Agreed entirely. My only doubt was/is whether a two-thirds majority of the existing Senate would have thought that it needed correcting.

If you want to speculate about reform of the Senate, I'd have thought the likeliest one would be to increase its size, so that each State had three Senators instead of two. Thus every two years, one Senator would be re-elected from each State. I wouldn't say that change is desperately needed (any more than yours is) but it makes things "tidier".
 
The binomial system of election, if anything, strengthens bipartisanship in the Senate vis-a-vis single member plurality.
 
Top