While I agree the Senate is no longer necessary and the best thing to do would be eliminate it, I imagine a country that cannot even agree to use the metric system is hardly likely to eliminate the upper hump of our federal legislature.

There might be a chance, though, to make these two changes: require only experienced legislators able serve in the Senate and increase the standards for re-election. I lay out the arguments at greater length here and here.

We should only allow people with at least ten years experience in a state legislature or in the House of Representatives to serve as a US Senator. Then, to be re-elected, a Senator runs only against him or herself, but must get the approval of at least 75 percent of the voters. If not re-elected, a new contest must be held to elect a new Senator (the one who failed to receive 75 percent of the vote cannot run again).

OK. I know this scheme is as likely to come to pass as elimination of the Senate, but I would at least like to see debated how we can improve the quality of the people currently serving in the US Senate, which is what I think needs to be fixed. Rule changes can come and go, but finding a way to get better people to serve in the US Senate might have a more realistic chance of passing.

If we must suffer with a “lordly” upper house, at least those serving in that institution should prove themselves able to handle the job.

Maintain the Senate as merely a ceremonial body similar to the House of Lords in GB. The only caveat being that all “Senators” be required to wear togas.

Can we any longer envision a Senate that is not all millionaires…..It’s beyond absurd; what interests do they represent?

Ontario and Quebec have junked their upper chambers without doing serious harm to the quality of lawmaking.

And, as in ancient Rome, end sittings as soon as it gets dark. People like McCain could go to sleep closer to their natural bedtime.

I think just changing the current rules of the Senate is nearly impossible.

Eliminating the Senate altogether would require the Senate to vote itself out of existence, unless you could get a 3/4ths majority of state legislatures to approve it. Are smaller states, that have disproportionate power going to vote to eliminate that?

Jon, whatever you are smoking, could you pass it over here?

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

Major reason this is almost assuredly unable to work is that it requires a Constitutional Amendment. I don’t see any way of that happening, especially when you ask states to willingly give up their strongest representation in the government.

Doesn’t that just raise the question of whether there is any willingness to consider what may be best for the country?

There’s the solution. The Senate can exist, but only for the purpose of mocking relentlessly.

No one thought the Senators would ever vote to allow the people to select them but it eventually happen do to huge popular press with the 17th amendment

More importantly It is meant to illustrate how narrow or debate is that what many would probably agree is a better system is not even talked about. It happens in almost everything.

willingness to consider what may be best for the country?

RevBev,

Your good intention is appreciated, as I appreciate Jon’s in writing this post, but honestly, do you remember any time in your life when both of the legislative bodies did what was best for the country?

The modern Scottish Parliament is one chamber (see “Checks and Balances in Single Chamber Parliaments: a Comparative Study,” University College of London, School of Public Policy, The Constitution Unit, published February 1998).

OT– Please consider reading Ian Welsh’s post, “Two bloggers who could use a helping hand” (Jan. 6, 2011)

The worst thing about the Senate are the 100 Senators. What a bunch of self-serving, corporation-serving, MIC serving, sanctimonious, millionaire, lying, underhanded hypocrites.

They have become utterly poor at disguising their contempt for Working Americans, Retirees, Veterans, the Disabled, Children, Education, Decent Healthcare, etc.

They love AT&T, GE, Goldman Sachs, Phizer, Halliburton, Perpetual War for the MIC, Big Oil, Wall Street, Humana, Blue Cross, State Farm…

Abolish the Senate.

While we’re suggesting radical changes…it is completely absurd that a few citizens in early primary states get such weighted impact on presidential elections.

I’ll agree with you, in the sense of Douglas’s “Power concedes nothing without a demand” but this is only going to remain illustrative; not substantive.

It is technically possible to amendment the Constitution without Congress.

Indeed. How the other states put up with this I can’t understand.

Jon,
I realize that you’re making a good point, but the reality is that the 17th amendment was adopted on April 8, 1913, well before the age of mass communication.

On March 8, 1916, Harold Power with his radio company American Radio and Research Company (AMRAD), broadcast the first continuous broadcast in the world from Tufts University under the call sign 1XE (it lasted 3 hours).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_radio

With corporate control of mass communication, nothing that weakens the power of the few as opposed to the many will ever happen in this country.

Sorry to be such a wet blanket.

To protect the small states from the large states, meant in fact “to protect slavery” In those days the large population states were in the north, the south’s population was smaller because of a more rural economy and the fact that a portion of their population was not citizens but slaves.

The southern states needed a way to block any movement that might work against slavery and their economic system.

This is still true except that they don’t exactly have slaves any more, only low wage non-union workers.

The U.S. Senate is the most useless body in Christendom.

You’d do better to go back to when Senators were appointed by the states.

At least the expensive races would be things of the past.

This moves the Overton Window rather nicely, though.

It makes completely eliminating the filibuster the centrist compromise.

That’s especially true in the case of the President. Recent occupants of the Oval Office have claimed almost limitless powers in the realms of national security and foreign policy, and tame Congresses has ratified the power grab by their silence.

see my #6, third paragraph of block quote.
Do you think the small states will give up their disproportionate power?

Going back to having Senators appointed by state legislators would be an improvement. (Well intentioned 17th amendment failed.)

I actually know my state rep. He comes around and knocks on doors every election cycle. If I told him Mark Kirk was a stupid choice for the Senate, it’s possible Mark Kirk would not be in the Senate today.

The Senate was even way more corrupt back than. It was tradition basically for the company to write a check to a state party effectively buy them what ever senator they wanted for six years.

watertiger is upstairs!
Late Night: Not the Best Day to Be Sarah Palin

And how does that differ from the current system, other than who gets the check?

A fun exercise, but I’m afraid futile.
I appreciate your posts; thanks!

Great post. Lovely reading.

I am all for going radical with ideas. First they laugh at you, etc.

It is less something I’m advocating for but more to show the limits of our debate.

“While there seems to be some growing intellectual consensus in support of slightly reforming Senate rules to modestly reduce obstructionism, the idea of returning the Senate to its original intent of a majority rule chamber is still labeled too radical. In reality there is nothing radical about merely bringing back the original Senate rule that allows a simple majority to end debate.”

thanks for this John. while there is nothing radical (from a Democratic point of view) about eliminating the senate, the senates whole purpose is to ensure that no laws or spending which the ruling oligarchy does not want, ever come into being. it is the anti-people chamber and serves the allmighty 1%

I doubt anyone really believes without the Senate, the California and Texas delegation would team up to screw over Wyoming and Vermont.

I completely believe that would happen.

Absolutely, Jon, this is the true “gridlock ” on all of our systems, political, economic, educational, legal and so on.

Indeed, we are beyond the point where stark, blatant fact is not merely denied, and those who would seek to discuss the blatantly obvious are dismissed as cranks and beyond the pale of reasoned social dialogue … we are at the point where truth, of any kind is, disregarded entirely, it being considered impolite to do otherwise.

It is as if semantic evasion of reality will suffice to keep it perpetually at bay and “consequence” something that befalls others and never ourselves; such being the hubris of empire extended and maintained only through vicious, inhuman hegemony.

A most thoughtful and excellent post Jon, through and through.

DW

The U.S. Senate is the most useless body in Christendom.

The College of Cardinals and the International Olympic Committee also belong in the top three.

well, right. why do something smart,like getting rid of the american house of lords, without enacting other necessary reforsm, such as getting rid of the idiotic electoral college. its less about who gets “the check” than who writes it.

any legitimate safegaurds the senate upholds could be carried out in an expanded, more democraticaly apportioned and elected House. Increase the representation in the house, and reform the committee system, and also how they are formed and elected in the within house.

The new government in Iraq, designed in part by the US, is parliamentarian, no electoral college.

gotta start dealing with this shit sometime. even Greider, the most absurdly, unjustifiably optimistic glass-half-full, stay the course democrat booster of the past 3 generations has conceded that the private money takeover of the American Govt is a fait acompli

http://www.thenation.com/article/157511/end-new-deal-liberalism

getting rid of the idiotic electoral college.

I’m all for that, but for some reason, the status quo is more important than common sense.

But it worked for Bush v. Gore didn’t it?
Hmmm….

How wonderfully generous of us, to partially “design” the government of a supposedly sovereign nation. I imagine the Founding Fathers of this nation would have happily welcomed the Brit’s designs had they offered them, don’t you, nht?

Geez, maybe we should just stop playing the “middleman” and turn Iraq over to the Brits, who also have a parlimentarian system and therefore much more in common with the Iraqi peoples than we do?

Why the Brits might even have more experience with empuh, one imagines.

DW

“This is still true except that they don’t exactly have slaves any more, only low wage non-union workers.”

Um, no. There really is slavery and debt-slavery in the US and it’s quite institutionalized. The following reading shows a partial picture:

“Slavery exists in the United States…maybe in your own backyard.” by Free The Slaves

“Service Women’s Action Network (Updated).”

‘Realities of Circular Migration: “The Invisibles,” a film with Amnesty International‘

‘Prison Nation(s): An Overview‘

‘Arizona, Hawai’i and Private Prisons (Updated)‘

I suggest a second civil war. Big states versus small states. Adding a plethora of small states was just a scam by the elite anyway. Can’t see why California, etc. puts up with it. Americans are stupid scumbags so losses due to war… yada yada. Probably will be fixed when the US eventually collapses.

“I suggest a second civil war.” I don’t.

Also, Senators didn’t serve for six years very often, as I recall reading in Gore Vidal’s histories of the USA. The fellow would be purchased by the needy trust, he’d be sent to DC to cast his vote, and then he’d be called home to free up the slot for the next needy corporate tool.

I don’t think I’ll live to see a Constitutional Convention called.

We got the current constitution when a convention was called to amend the Articles of Confederation. They tossed the Articles out and started from scratch, which was way beyond their charge.

If a Constitutional Convention is called, there is nothing to stop the Convention from writing a whole new bag.

Pretty much tongue in cheek, as the big state politicians are all owned by same (national) elites, extreme “state-ism” is not going to happen.

Finally, someone here is thinking outside of the liberal boxes.

First off, it is not possible to democratize the Senate as currently comprised without adding a population factor to weigh each Senator’s vote.

A 50%+1 threshold could empower Senators representing only 41% of Americans to pass or halt legislation. That is not Democratic.

I know that it is a Democrat Party talking point to demand that the filibuster be reformed, but that is only in preparation of the Republicans taking the chamber in 2012, doing what the Democrats do best, lowering the bar to screwing Americans.

Just like the Democrats are falling all over themselves to take steps to further restrict access to firearms just as it becomes more likely that economic deterioration will lead to an increasing presence of law enforcement to keep the order on behalf of a government that does not listen to electoral stimuli, only turns right.

-marc

Eliminating the smaller early states implies that we have the first primaries in larger states or groups of states.

Given the price of TV and campaigning in general, that means that money will be more important than ever. If you are worried about the corporate control over contributions, as most herein seem to worry about, eliminating the small states will be the worst possible thing to do.

You write a good piece but i dont think the problem with the Senate is that it needs more proffesional elitists

LOL. yes yes yes. it cant be done. but that dosent mean that we arent obligated to attempt it. i ahve always suggested that we need to rebuild a left, and leftist instituions, a movement, before we can bring about revolutionary, democratic change.

Lets see. That ten years before the Senate would have eliminated Obama, Gore, Kennedy, Mondale, Humphrey and certainly others from taking a seat in the Senate.

ohhhhh nooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PalestineAndTransjordan.png

Bzzt. The problem with the Senate and this craphole country is inaction, not action (well, unless it is “W” going to War, but he did that by his lonesome). The 60% rule blocks action with only a small percentage of the represented population and provides a convenient excuse for the Democratic Kabuki Party. Also it makes the House irrelevant except as a “Veto-ing Body”.

And its not 2012 that is the only importance there is 2014, 2015, 2016, … 2020, etc.

Guns are great issue for the DemoRats, a useless distracting social issue (non-economic) and plus do their elite patrons really want an armed angry public.

An archaic institution, agreed. Fundamentally anti-little-d-democratic. Which is what elites just luuuurv about it.

So, Jon, while you’ve got yr Big Think hat on …

Why does the U.S. need a constitution? Arguably statute, precedent, and institutional memory, er, constitute government structure. A constitution is like a scaffold or stay. It’s useful at an inchoate stage; if it later impedes, it’s legitimate to ask, Is it still even necessary?

I’m agnostic on the answer to that question. My one line-in-the-sand druther would be a proper feedback mechanism, which the 18th-century relic badly lacks. Majorities of legislatures in three-fourths of states? Puh-lease. And calling a constitutional convention is a joke. It has never happened, and it will not happen before the end of the world, or something uncomfortably close to it. That pretty much shuts down rewriting the thing democratically to keep up with the times. Result: nine black-robed lifetime appointments fill the void. A very, very bad idea, even more anti-little-d-democratic than the senate.

Yeah, the senate is bad and corrupt and a joke that should be history. However there’s no reason to stop there. The constitution is sclerotic in so many, many ways. The trick would be to either get rid of it altogether or make it or a successor malleable enough that that famous We, the People can have a say in it much more easily and directly. It’s not a panacea, but at least it’s in the spirit of a democracy.

Good luck with that, eh?! You said you want to think radically …

removing the senate would remove a massive impediment to convening a constituional convention. the house, for all its flaws is a democratic body. the senate is just a big corporate board room.

This election every two years has got to go. Every 4 years is better. At least they get things done. All elections aligned. One election everything done. Maybe increase the numbers in the senate and have 3 senators from each state.

Just outsource it, or better yet have corporations bid for each senator to balance the budget. Take the hypocrisy out of it.

But Jon, if he abolished the Senate, what would we do for kabuki? No passing of bills with much flourish in the House, safe in the knowledge that they will never pass the Senate? No drama of gutting bills to achieve an imaginary super-majority.

Zing!

1. It’s virtually impossible
2. Imagine the T-Party with total power.

I like the idea of turning the Senate into the House of Lords, little or no real power.
But it looks like ‘Merica is ready to hand over the Senate to the Repimplicans.
What then?

Perhaps straight yes/no votes, no amendments, with reasonable debate limits.
They obviously can’t cope with the power they now have.

So let me get this straight, Jon: You’re perfectly content if legislation, including and especially the worst, most heinous bills ever conceived, passes Congress with a simple majority vote — even if that “majority” is only such by a single vote, meaning that half the nation is continually screwed over each and every time regardless of who is in power.

That kind of “democracy,” where fifty-one percent of the public can impose its will on the other forty-nine percent with no stop or check upon abuses thereof is precisely what the framers wanted to avoid. It’s what ultimately led to the failure of Greece as it was absorbed by Rome. And it’s exactly the kind of short-sighted mentality that anti-democracy proponents such as yourself never seem to allow yourselves to understand is so destructive. You never think beyond the moment, and you have to. The Senate is one senator away from going back to GOP control, the very thing you’re so damned afraid of. Yet here you are coming out in favor of giving the GOP exactly what it wants: unfettered ability to pass whatever batshit insane legislation it wants with a simple majority vote — all because you want to be lied to by Democrats who are too lazy to do their jobs and who think you’re so stupid that you’ll believe their lame excuses for why they continually refuse to do those jobs.

If my suggestion was in place during the lifetime of the people you listed, they may have chosen to serve their time and then run for the Senate. I think it would have made them better Senators. Maybe it would have made them better candidates for President, too.

Nothing wrong with having professionals in the Senate. Better that than rank amateurs who are very easily manipulated by the real elitists: the ones with virtually unlimited cash to buy politicians.

There will be no House of Lords in the Second Republic. Also missing will be the CIA and the Fed.

One of Edith Wharton’s characters in The Buccaneers calls for removing the House of Lords from the map. Completely obliterating the institution… though he would allow them to retain their proper inherited rights, just not the one that allows them to control how the people govern themselves.

And he compares the British government to a beehive, and the 12 individuals who (then) control many millions of acres to the drones, who eventually are driven out of the hive by the worker bees.

You can see a four-part miniseries of this novel on NetFlix InstantView. The cast is really great. It was the last novel that Wharton was working on when she died. Of course, she always knew how something was going to end and likely had copious notes about the ending.

Nonsense. Majority rule is mitigated by minority protections in the constitution. It is minority rule that is anti democratic.

Thanks for the reminder and the links.

The progressives should start their own party. Run on ending the Senate. See how many votes you get. My guess? Not many. To change the constitution, you need 35 states. Not gonna happen.

“Can we any longer envision a Senate that is not all millionaires…..It’s beyond absurd; what interests do they represent?”

Themselves. But, then again, multi-millionaire Nancy Pelosi was just Speaker of the House and in her leadership, she represented those same interests.

I say we bring back property qualifications AND the Greek concept of “ostracism” as it worked in Colonial MA.

Basically, anyone with a total net worth of more than, say, $500K cannot serve in the House of Representatives–because they are not representative. They can run for office in the Senate. 2 reps of the rich per state. We all vote for them. If New Yorkers like their candidate from Bloomberg News better than their candidate from Goldman Sachs, they can go for it.

If we add publicly funded elections, then some $1 million net worth schlub from up state might even have a crack at the Senate. It would, therefore, be in the interests of those white collar libertarians who imagine they will get caught in the “middle class squeeze” to advocate for publicly funded elections.

Meanwhile, any low net worth dirtbag in the House caught selling their vote to the upper class(es) and the corporations and handful of select educational institutions that served them so well will be ostracised from the House. Think impeachment. People who are not public minded can go work for the upper classes directly in the private sector.

John Adams, of MA, had a heated debate with Tom Paine over the bi-cameral/ unicameral legislature. His bottom line was that if you had a unicameral legislature without property qualifications– as opposed to the Commons/Lords model to which Paine objected as being “too complicated” and “too unlike natural society” (where we’re all theoretically equal, right?)– then the wealthy and the clever (who will soon wealthy as well–thanks, Harvard!) will swamp the legislature and facilitate the capture of the entire government.

I think this position has some merit.

Take a look at the net worths in the House today. They may not be as excessive as those in the Senate, but they are not “representative.” There is no way that Nancy Pelosi should ever have been “Speaker of the House.”

The UK, New Zealand, Norway, none of them seem like living hell dystopias being simple majority rule democracies.

Er, none of them have our Constitution. We do.

The small states, tax takers all, have the large states, mostly tax paying states, by the balls and there is no way out of that.

Damn, I’m glad I live in the greatest democracy in the world.

Not really. It would increase fairness.

Of course we need campaign finance reform. That’s a given.

Sure there is. Downsize the federal govt and let the people of those states keep their money.

I’ve advocated abolishing the Senate for years. It’s a good thing to get the idea on the table and to keep it there, regardless of the naysayers and can’t-be-dones.

BUT any move to abolish the Senate must be accompanied with a simultaneous substantial expansion of the House of Representatives. The House is way, way too small to represent the People in any rational way, which is why, so often, House members are the creatures of the corporatists that own them. In addition to expansion of the House, corporate funding has to be eliminated from campaigns.

Doubling, tripling, even quadrupling the number of House districts and House seats, such that no Member represents more than 30,000 people (instead of the hundreds and hundreds of thousands they now “represent”) will get the House Members closer to the People and make it less — rather than more — likely that moneyed financial interests will control the Congress as they do now.

Expanding the House has the added benefit of making it less likely that reactionary rightists such as the TeaBaggers would be able to take over.

Teabaggers? Are you a teabaggee.? What is wrong with limited federal govt?

See my entry in response to this nonsense for more detail on why your argument is dishonest and shortsighted. But the bottom line is that the nature of today’s American politics and the ideological war zone we exist in negates your rationale. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the fascist and increasingly violent conservative movement in this country, which controls both political parties, won’t seize the opportunity you’d gladly hand to them to solidify their hold on power and pass legislation that makes the USA PATRIOT and Military Commissions Acts, not to mention torture, illegal surveillance and imprisonment, and state-sanctioned murder look pale in comparison to what comes after.

Jon, what do you have to show that the United States political class, which is far more right-wing and bent on the total obliteration of democracy everywhere than the governments of Australia and other countries, won’t pass legislation that make the USA PATRIOT and Military Commisions Acts, illegal surveillance and imprisonment, torture, and state-sanctioned murder (all of which was passed by simple majority votes in spite of the filibuster’s existence), look tame in comparison to what comes after you’ve eliminated the Senate? Nothing. You made a dishonest argument in favor of a radical and utterly destructive idea that is not even close to being sensible. And you know this for a fact.

Exactly.

Fuck the useless Crapstitution and the worthless “Founding Fuckups” (who are no doubt spinning in their graves). The United States has the worst democracy in the industrialized world with the most imbecilic public. The “Holy Crapstitution” has not stopped this country’s government from being a corrupt bought and payed for sewer. Really, screw “minority rights” if that is the excuse to lock in this worthless document until the end of time (heh, “minority rights” arguments by “conservative friends” seems a bit disengenuous to me).

– Screw the undemocratic Senate.
– Screw the House with 600,000+ sized gerrymandered representative districts.
– Screw the Supreme Court with it “Dictators for life”
– Screw the imperial presidency that can take us to war on a whim.

While I am on a roll:
– Screw “winner take all” geographic representation and locked in terms. I want to pick who I want to represent me and I want to be able to drop them instantly if they screw me over.

There is not much good in the Crapstition besides a few “feel good slogans” and it can’t be improved because of ridiculous self referencing change requirements. Of course, if part of the country wants to leave to escape this piece of shit document and government, Lincoln says you gotta drop nukes on them.

The US is circling the drain and this document is a big reason why.

I concur. The people need a new Republic with a new constitution. But please don’t blame the old constitution for today’s Fascist Dictatorship. That was the work of traitors.

Perhaps you should move. We will stay here and try to get back to the original constitution, where the states have the power.

And you think the filibuster or the Senate itself is going to save us from the Fascists?

Respectfully, you should take some time off Michael.

Not by itself, no. But because the people misusing a tool are misusing it does not mean the tool itself is defective. Try taking some time off yourself.

The purpose of the Senate any more is to provide an easy way for corporations to purchase influence in Washington by flooding small states with campaign cash. Other than that, it serves no purpose whatsoever.

Like most Western parliamentary democracies, the USA has a mixed-form government, not a pure form. The three pure forms, per Aristotle in “The Politics”, are (1) rule by the many, (2) rule by the few, and (3) rule by one. Each form has its benign and its malign versions as explained by Aristotle. In the USA. the House is a democracy (representative, not direct), the Senate is an aristocracy (plutocratic), and the Chief Executive is a monarchy (in times of Congress-declared war, POTUS is legally a dictator until peace is formally declared). In addition, the Supreme Court is a monarchy (gerontocracy).

There is a sound practical reason for a bicameral parliament (legislature). Any government based purely on democracy will be highly emotional and populist, moving from one extreme to another as the social, economic, and political winds blow. This is volatile and dangerous. Knowing this, Socrates provoked the 501 jurors at his trial in the ancient, democratic, city-state of Athens to vote against him and sentence him to death for the crime of corrupting the youth by his example of free, open inquiry and the crime of offending the gods of the city-state.

In the USA, the aristocratic Senate provides a flywheel to balance the perturbations and vacillations of the democratic House. In extreme situations, such as the 9/11 World Trade Center terrorist attacks, even the Senate can be stampeded into a frenzy of fear-mongering legislation such as the Patriot Act.

The main reform that is needed to the U.S. Constitution is a formal, institutionalized mechanism to prevent the POTUS, appointed political officials and elected politicians (who are representatives of the power-elite and supported by corporate campaign contributions) from invoking “Reasons of State” (raison d’etat) to justify official government secrecy. This might be implemented by a new, aristocratic branch of federal government, such as a Supreme Secrecy Court, with twelve members.

Doubling, tripling, even quadrupling the number of House districts and House seats, such that no Member represents more than 30,000 people (instead of the hundreds and hundreds of thousands they now “represent”) will get the House Members closer to the People and make it less — rather than more — likely that moneyed financial interests will control the Congress as they do now.

Agreed in principle to the original intent (!) in Ye Olde Constitution of House districts limited to 30,000. It’s a back door to proportional representation. Trouble is, in a megastate of 300,000,000 (eight zeroes), you’d need a House of 10,000 members. That’s a whole lot o’ Congress critters.

Just consider the number of rest rooms!

So while on the topic of the sacred: 50 states? What’s up with that? Consider the administrative duplication. Consider the representative asymmetries (as in, Wyoming, two senators?). It make-a no sense. Fewer, larger “states” could, among other things, help drive costs down, decentralize federal power, and take on ever-growing problems of scale (like a unicameral legislature with 10,000 reps).