Post-Seveenteenth Amendment Senate: Still a Force For Federalism

Is the Senate still a powerful force for federalism, for protecting the interests of the states and we the people who reside in the states?

How does the "equal representation" rule (each state gets two senators) rule fit in?

Prof. Sandy Levinson calls the Senate an “evil,” "egregious” and “undemocratic” institution, because it provides too much power to small states, particularly, as he puts it,  “small parochial rural states,” such as Wyoming and our own beloved Nebraska. In Levinson’s eyes, the chief evil of the Senate is precisely the quality that federalists view as its chief good—the fact that, says Levinson, “the Senate can exercise a veto power on majoritarian legislation passed by the House that is deemed too costly to the interests of the small states, which are overrepresented in the Senate..”

So Levinson calls the Senate undemocratic and evil because Wyoming has the same representation in the Senate as does California. The Wyoming voter has 70 times the voting power of the California voter, and this violates fundamental notions of political equality in Levinson’s view.

Do you agree with Levinson?

Now consider this response to Levinson.

As Martin Diamond explains, the Senate was designed to be “federally democratic” as opposed to “nationally democratic.” Elections for the Senate “are as freely and democratically contested as elections can be—but in the states. Victory always goes to the winner of the raw popular vote—but in the states.” Each voter in Wyoming and each voter in California has an equal vote in Senatorial elections—but in his respective state!

The Constitution creates the Senate to check national power and to advance federalism, by ensuring that each State in the Union has an equal voice in one branch of the National Government. Indeed, a federally democratic Senate is more “democratic” than a nationally democratic Senate in at least one important respect—election of Senators at the state level ensures that each Senator is more likely to represent his statewide electorate than would be the case if we had a national election for the Senate. Each Senator elected to represent Wyoming in the Senate is a resident of Wyoming and was elected by the people of Wyoming. Thus, she is more likely to reflect the regional and cultural values of her electorate—the people of Wyoming-- than would be the case if Senators were elected by a national electorate. And the same is true for California, and Arizona and Hawaii and Alaska. 

What do you think?