The Senate in the USA, as here in Australia, is a house of review. It cannot inaugurate legislation (which emanates from the lower house) but it can block it.cassowary wrote: ↑Sat Jan 05, 2019 4:49 pm
I did not propose that in my book. What I suggested was that Votes for Senators be based in the amount of taxes each voter pays. In other words, those who pay more taxes get more votes. The voting rules for the lower House of Representatives remain the same
, ie one man one vote.
We (or at least the United States) has been there before. Do you recall the Missouri compromise?
Well, it was inaugurated by President Andrew Jackson's administration to placate the slave owning southern states after one of them (South Carolina) threatened to succeed in 1831. The goal of that agreement was to keep the number of slave states and the number of free states in the American union equal. If a new free state carved from their western frontier were admitted then likewise a new slave state had to be accepted to balance that up.
Why was maintaining that balance so important? Because under their constitution each state (then as now) had the same number of senators to represent it. Furthermore, senators were in those days appointed by state governments, not elected by the public as they are now. It meant that there were equal numbers of senators permanently in place representing the slave and free states. Under the rules of the US Senate any bill in which there are an equal number of yes and no votes in ruled to be in the negative; it has not passed.
It was in other words an institutionalised filibuster designed to ensure that the interests of the slave owning plantocracy were protected from the tender mercies of the northern abolitionists.
One might argue that you cannot compare modern multi-billionaire businessmen with the slave owning Dixie planters of yore. Well, you can! For throughout much of the first half of the 19th century it was exports of plantation crops like cotton and tobacco that earned the United States the lion's share of its foreign exchange - thereby helping to keep the young republic solvent.
I reject your view that the Senate ought be elected on the basis of voter's incomes for the reason that I would have rejected the effects of the Missouri Compromise. It has all of the potential to corrupt American public life further just as empowering the southern plantocracy thus in days of yore did.