Democracy, the Senate, and Majority Rule Don't Mix...

The reading I found most interesting this week was Richard Rosenfeld’s piece, “What Democracy?” in which he argues against the Senate as a democratic institution. Rosenfeld’s main point is that the Senate misrepresents the country’s interests due to its egalitarian setup. This makes it so that states with low populations extract more benefits per capita than the more populous states. Currently, the representatives of only 18% of the US population could stop any piece of legislation that would actually be beneficial to the other 80%. Also, the high cost of running a Senate campaign favors wealthy white men, so that states with a very large minority population still find themselves represented by millionaires who have nothing in common with them.

Rosenfeld’s argument provided a good backdrop to the September 24th lecture, which focused on how difficult it is to cater to everyone’s preferences. Professor King concluded the lecture by reiterating that there is no such thing as a “majority will” independent of the institutions the society uses to determine it. In other words, there always has to be someone, or something, to “restrict the expression” of the general population and make decisions for them. In that light, Rosenfeld’s argument loses its appeal. The Senate does exactly what is necessary to make decisions: it restricts the expression of the general population, and defines the majority will of the US. Therefore, the fact that 18% of the population holds a majority in the Senate may seem unfair, but according to Condorcet, Arrow, and Professor King, you have to be unfair in order to get things done. Rosenfeld’s complaint is one that echoes throughout all countries and societies. In France, a President can get elected with a mere 20% of the popular vote. In a US without a Senate, whatever California, Texas, and New York decide could easily become the law. I personally believe it is important to take care of the minority.

The fact that majority is defined by institutions highlights another fact: there is no such thing as a true democracy. As long as people’s preferences are restricted and articulated through institutions, there can never really be a government that speaks for everyone. While this is widely accepted fact, the US tries to get as close to it as possible. I agree with Rosenfeld’s arguments against the Senate as an undemocratic institution, but its abolition would lead to more issues of inequality, as the small states would become the absolute minority in government and continually be overshadowed.