A new rule change in the Senate, allows judicial and executive nominees to be approved by the Senate with a simple majority vote, instead of the prior de facto minimum of sixty to cut off fillibustering of nominees. The change has been largely publicized (and rightly so) as a huge shift toward populism for the more “deliberative” of our two houses of Congress.

The Washington Post ran an article entitled “How the Senate Became the House, in 4 Steps“. While it certainly is true that the Senate is becoming more and more similar to the House, the article fails to mention perhaps the biggest change the Senate has undergone in its history, making it much more like the House: the 17th Amendment. Article One of the constitution stipulated that, while House members would be chosen directly by their constituents, senators would be chosen directly by the legislatures of the states. Thus, the House was a more populist chamber, while the Senate was a more federal institution. The election of Senators directly by the citizens of the states, instead of state legislatures, made the two chambers equally populist in type of constituency.

The four most distinguishing qualities of the Senate as opposed to the House were: constituency, base of representation, length of term, and individual leverage of members. When we did away with the former, we not only took power away from the state governments, but ensured the role of senator would grow more and more similar to the role of a representative. As we do away with the latter, we further blur the lines in our bicameral system.

I’m not sure blurring the lines is a good thing. Historically, and even today, the House of Representatives bickers more and reflects less than the Senate. Acting with prudence almost always less convenient and appealing in the short term. It is also crucial to good governance. We continue to remove the traditions that make prudential decisions possible in the Senate.