Asymmetric Democracy

Trump, Upper Houses and Jaffna

Impeachment and Trial

The US House of Representatives (the lower house of Congress) voted to impeach President Donald Trump. He will now face a trial in the Senate (the upper house). While the impeachment requires only a simple majority of members of the House of Representatives to pass, conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds super-majority.

Donald Trump would likely be acquited. Because the President’s Republican party holds a majority in the Senate, and senators are unlikely to break ranks. I will be surprised if even a simple majority vote to convict the President.

The Strange Senate

The Democratic Party has more popular support nation-wide than compared to the Republican Party. Then, how does the latter have a majority in the Senate?

This is because the Senate is strange. Each of the 50 United States of America, regardless of population, has two representatives in the Senate, for a total of 100 senators. Hence, California (population almost 40 Million), and Wyoming (550,000) have the same representation.

The rationale behind the allocation was to prevent big states from dominating small states. Also, the Senate was supposed to be a thoughtful and long-termist, compared to the 435 House of Representatives. Representatives of the “House” were elected every two years, in proportion to voter population. They were expected to keep tabs of citizen needs and draft laws. In contrast, the Senate, elected every six years, would validate and, if necessary, dampen the activity of the house. In many cases, the house decided what to do, and the Senate, what not to. Given these roles, asymmetry was not considered problematic. At least to the founding fathers of the US.

And the arrangement seemed to work. At least, in theory. In practice, particularly more recently, the disproportionate nature of the Senate has given the Republican party, which is more popular in smaller states, an advantage. Many have described this asymmetry as undemocratic.

The asymmetry also (to a lesser degree) affects presidential elections. A presidential candidate getting more votes in a state, is assigned all the “Electoral College seats” of that state. The Electoral College currently consists of the 100 senators and the 435 representatives. Hence, the winner of smaller states gets relatively more seats than winners of bigger states.

Many partly blamed Hillary Clinton’s defeat on this Asymmetry. Had the President been selected by simple popular vote, Clinton II would have won.

But this also got me thinking about other places with asymmetric.

The Sri Lankan Parliament

For example, consider the assignment of parliamentary seats to electoral districts in Sri Lanka.

If we plot the number of seats per district and voter population, we get the following graph:

(For completeness, I’ve assigned the 29 National List seats to electoral districts, in proportion of voter population).

The magic equation is:

Seats = 12.084 * Voter Population (in Millions) + 1.9854

Or approximately,

Seats = 12 * Voter Population (in Millions) + 2

For every million voters, each electoral district has 12 MPs, plus 2. The “2” represents the advantage small districts have. For example, if a district had zero voters, it would still have about two seats.

Hence, while the Sri Lankan parliament is uni-cameral, there is a “House” + “Senate” dynamic. Where each electoral district has 2 “senators” (irrespective of population), and some number of “representatives” proportional to population.

This is not an accident. When the constitution defined the assignment of seats, 36 were assigned, 4 each, to each of the 9 provinces. Regardless of population. 160 were allocated to electoral districts, in proportion to voter population. The remaining 29 formed the national list, assigned to parties in proportion to the national vote.

The allocation of the four seats within districts was also controversial. Most famously, the four seats of the northern province were allocated three to Vanni and one to Jaffna. Despite Jaffna having a significantly larger population.

Concluding Reflections

Despite the many bugs and disadvantages discussed, I like the idea of a bicameral legislature. Done right, it has benefits. Particularly the “modulating” role of an upper house.

Time to give it another try?