We are living in a moment with big questions about the future of humanity, one that often feels increasingly pessimistic. This sentiment is compounded by a government in which partisan impasse and political identity increasingly reign. How do we go from this moment of frustration and disempowerment and use the upcoming midterm elections to find a solution? I would argue that we ought to return to the source: The best way to understand what our government represents is by reading the Constitution.
I have been thinking about my own experiences of feeling politically lost in a sea of opinions, candidates and battlegrounds, and have realized that I do not even know what I should expect. To be honest, I do not even know what the true purpose of Congress is. I think this issue extends beyond myself: There is a fundamental lack of clarity among our population about what it means to be voting in these upcoming elections. I am not going to pretend that I definitively know what the right answer is, but I found my answers for many of these questions by examining the document that wrote the rules for this whole system: Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
We were not meant to vote for the Senate. Prior to the passing of the 17th Amendment in 1917, senators were chosen by their state legislatures. Initially, I thought this expansion of voting would have served as a positive change. What could be better than giving more power to the people? But the more I thought and read about it (through the National Constitution Center), the more I realized that popular elections have their own drawbacks.
For one, they opened the door to more outside political influence. All of a sudden, senators were forced onto the campaign trail—an expensive endeavor. According to Tech Influence Watch, the artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency industries have spent over $200 million and $400 million on political campaigns, respectively. These are just two examples of special interest groups that hold a large amount of influence over who actually gets elected while not representing the overall interests of the population.
Additionally, senators were meant to be representatives of the interests of state legislatures on the national stage, protecting the individual state’s rights. If you had asked me to tell you the difference between the people I would elect to my state legislature and the people I would elect to Congress, I would not be able to tell you. However, this distinction—representing the interests of the legislature—makes it clear that the two positions are meant to be performing different roles.
Perhaps, with the right to vote, many of us face the issue of not knowing exactly what we are voting for. This problem is not one that has a quick fix. Having a robust understanding of both the government and the multitude of candidates that appear each cycle is a complicated and time-consuming endeavor, making it difficult for most voters—who face many other time-consuming pressures—to make a choice that actually serves their interests.
How do you vote for the right person? I think that another section provides some key insight into the purpose of Congress: Section 8. At the very beginning of the section, it specifies that the purpose of the revenue collected by Congress is to provide for the “general Welfare” of the American people. While the meaning of this is a matter debated since James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, my impression when reading was that what is good for individual states and what is good for the nation is clearly differentiated.
There is a very large difference between policies that can be enacted on a local level and those that can possibly be negotiated on the stage of a nation. Recognizing this difference might be the best step towards making a Congress that is able to act on the biggest threats to the well-being of the United States and electing local legislatures that will create an environment in which we can lead the lives we desire. Though I sincerely believe that there are some more partisan social projects that could be a benefit to the nation, by reading the Constitution I have come to a realization that perhaps there are some compromises that should be made in order to ensure a functioning federal government.
Part of this open-mindedness includes looking beyond political identity to recognize times when a candidate’s policies would be beneficial to fostering a fruitful union. This sentiment is best exemplified by Republican commentator Sarah Longwell in her interview with The New Yorker’s “Political Scene” podcast, where she explains why she has a positive view of Zohran Mamdani despite political differences: “Do they seem like they want to help people? … Does this person want America to succeed or fail?” I think this question serves as a pretty good benchmark to vote by.
Ultimately, my experience in reading the Constitution was one that made me realize just how little I knew about it and about how my own government worked. As more people read it, I hope that we can begin to think a little bit more about the role that Congress plays in our government and evaluate the difference between your local legislatures and Congressional representatives. It would be foolish for me to tell you my vision is the right interpretation of the Constitution, but what I can definitively say is that everyone should make an effort to read it and form their own ideas before they vote in the upcoming midterms. It is only through this way that we can try to reshape a government which clearly is not helping the daily lives of anyone, regardless of political views, in the United States.