Now that Senate Republicans have gone “nuclear” to overcome a filibuster against Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court, many are lamenting that the Senate is well on its way to becoming just a smaller version of the House of Representatives.
“The thing I worry most about is that we become like the House of Representatives,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said. “What’s the next step? Legislation? I’m convinced it’s a slippery slope.”
“People who have been here for a long time know that we’re going down the wrong path here,” said Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V. “The most unique political body in the world, the United States Senate, will be no more than a six-year term in the House.”
But don’t believe the hype. There will be no need for a mass re-write of civics textbooks. Ditching the filibuster isn’t ideal, to be sure, but it also won’t fundamentally change the Senate into another House of Representatives. That’s true even if Republicans eventually find it necessary to ditch the 60-vote threshold for legislation. Here are four reasons why:
How they’re elected
Every member of the House of Representatives has roughly the same number of constituents as the other: about 710,000. Senators, however, represent anywhere from about 584,000 constituents to 38.8 million constituents. Both houses serve as great equalizers in their own way, with the senators from Wyoming having just as much power to defend their state’s interests as the senators from California, while the composition of the House of Representatives is usually more representative of majority interests (gerrymandering aside).
Furthermore, senators are still elected every six years instead of every two, meaning their fundraising struggles aren’t quite as constant as those of House members.
Deliberation
Speaking of facing election every six years, the Senate is designed to move more deliberately than the House, even without the 60-vote threshold. As many frustrated House staffers will say, they often quickly pass legislation, and then have to wait, and wait, and then wait some more for the Senate to take action. That’s true even when both houses are controlled by the same party. While the House is somewhat similar to a parliamentary body that can move swiftly, the Senate is where legislation is slowly but surely considered. That’s not just because of the 60-vote threshold.
What they do
The Senate has a lot of functions and responsibilities that the House doesn’t, which is partially why it takes the Senate so much longer to do the same things the House does. The Senate must approve presidential nominations. Cabinet nominations and Supreme Court nominations get all the press, but there are also ambassadorships and plenty of other federal judges and executive officials that are confirmed by the Senate. On top of that, it ratifies treaties.
Even without a 60-vote threshold, the Senate will still have to do all these things.
Not extreme
The Senate is generally less partisan than the House, and not just because it requires 60 percent of its body to pass legislation instead of a simple majority. Without gerrymandering to push its members into extremely-partisan districts, fringe members of the Senate generally have less power (Generally. Just look at the influence Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders have).
Even if it takes only 50 votes (plus Vice President Mike Pence) to get legislation through, the Senate won’t become a body ruled by extremists. Just look at the centrist Republicans that defected on some of President Trump’s Cabinet nominations, such as Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. Collins and Murkowski are by no means a yes-vote on everything Trump or the GOP-controlled House of Representatives want.
Would it be better if senators could do a better job of compromising and function effectively with a 60-vote threshold for nominations and legislation? Yes, absolutely. But claiming the Senate without the 60-vote threshold is just a smaller version of the House is silly.
Jason Russell is the contributors editor for the Washington Examiner.
