Senate
![Picture](/uploads/1/7/9/9/17990321/938419301.gif)
Instead of Article 1, Section 3, detailing the length of a senators term as being six years long, I would have the term be three years long, similar to the term length in the House of Representatives. Originally, the framers of the constitution intended that senators should be older and wiser, and be separate from public opinion. With this new term length in place, senators would have to face the public much more often, and more of the public opinion would show in decisions made by the Senate. However, a negative effect would be that senators would not be able to make decisions free of the rise and fall of the public's opinion. This would mean that the decisions of some senators might not be based on what they think is best for the United States, and rather what will keep them in office. The short term length would also cause more turnover in the Senate, meaning a more diverse group of senators. This is a positive effect, since new senators every three years could mean more up-to-date opinions. The effects of this change would be eventual, since the three year term would have to expire to accommodate a new group of senators. The elections for both the House of Representatives and the Senate would be out of sync, since elections for new representatives take place every two years, and elections for new senators take place every three years. It is possible that with these many elections, voters might lose interest, and voter participation could decline. In conclusion, this change would not be a positive one. It has several negative effects, like biased decisions and reduced voter participation. Its one positive effect, more turnover in the Senate, wouldn't be enough to tip the balance. These are some of both the positive and negative effects of this relatively profound change.