Other countries have malapportioned upper chambers of the legislature. They also have supermajoritarian amendment procedures which protect the representational design of those upper chambers. If they did not have such procedures, then their upper chambers would have been reformed already.
Citizens in these countries are distributed among the states (provinces, cantons, etc.) in a manner similar to the U.S.: a majority of citizens live in large states and are underrepresented, while a strong majority of states are small. An amendment provision as simple as requiring that a majority of states or cantons must approve, as Australia and Switzerland have, seems to be enough to prevent reform.
| Country | Upper Chamber Design |
Most Over- represented |
Most Under- represented |
Amendment Procedure |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| USA | 2 senators per state | Wyoming (1 per 290,000 residents) |
California (1 per 19 million), D.C. and territories unrepresented |
2/3 of each house and 3/4 of state legislatures (most common), unanimous state consent regarding changing the Senate |
| Argentina | 3 per province | Tierra del Fuego (1 per 40,000) |
Buenos Aires (1 per 5 million) |
2/3 of each house |
| Brazil | 3 per state | Roraima (1 per 150,000) |
Sao Paulo (1 per 14 million) |
1/3 of House or Senate or 1/2 of states, then 3/5 of both houses |
| Germany | 3-6 per state | Bremen (1 per 220,000) |
North Rhine-Westphalia (1 per 3 million) |
2/3 of both houses |
| Switzerland | 2 per canton, 1 for small cantons |
Appenzell Innerrhoden (1 per 15,000) |
Zurich (1 per 700,000) |
a majority of people and a majority of cantons |
| Australia | 12 per state, 2 per territory |
Tasmania (1 per 43,000) |
New South Wales (1 per 600,000) |
a majority of people and a majority of people in a majority of states |
| Mexico | 3 per state (96) plus 32 at-large |
Colima (1 per 220,000) |
Mexico (1 per 5 million) |
2/3 of Congress, a majority of state legislatures |
Here are selected countries without powerful malapportioned upper chambers, and without overly difficult amendment procedures. They seem to be relatively stable and free.
| Country | Upper Chamber | Amendment Procedure |
|---|---|---|
| UK | the House of Lords has no real power | no written constitution |
| New Zealand | unicameral | no written constitution |
| France | disproportionate upper chamber, but lower house has final say when houses cannot agree |
a majority of each house (one method) and a majority of voters |
| Sweden | unicameral | a majority of Parliament, then a majority of voters |
| Ireland | upper house is complicated, lower house can override |
a majority of each house, then a majority of voters |
| Italy | upper chamber allocated by population | a majority of each house, twice, then a majority of voters required in some cases |
Democratic majorities in these countries generally protect essential minority rights because a majority of the citizens in these countries are good and fair people. The same is true for a majority of American citizens.