On Nov. 8 the top of the ticket offers a choice between two unpopular candidates. The election is a lose-lose for many voters, who will cast their ballot not for the next president but against either Donald J. Trump or Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But down the ticket a different story is playing out. Thirty-four states have U.S. Senate elections, and the Senate races in at least six of those states, including Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, are highly competitive. Voters have a critical decision to make about who will lead the Senate – a choice that I believe is even more important than who wins the White House.

ADVERTISEMENT

No matter who becomes our next president, the Senate will soon determine the outcome of multiple Supreme Court nominations, escalating debates over foreign policy and trade, and looming domestic policy clashes. But whether the Senate can even function properly, much less show good judgment, will depend on whether or not Republicans can hold the majority.

Both parties have had turns controlling the Senate in recent years, but their records are far from equal. Under current Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Addison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellPelosi: Trump hurrying to fill SCOTUS seat so he can repeal ObamaCare Senate GOP aims to confirm Trump court pick by Oct. 29: report Trump argues full Supreme Court needed to settle potential election disputes MORE, a Republican from Kentucky, the Senate has functioned largely as our Founders intended, with the majority party setting the agenda and the minority party exercising its right to offer amendments and dissent.

This has provided a sharp contrast to the reign of the previous majority leader, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid Harry Mason ReidThe Supreme Court vacancy — yet another congressional food fight Trump seeks to turn around campaign with Supreme Court fight On The Trail: Battle over Ginsburg replacement threatens to break Senate MORE of Nevada, who used procedural loopholes and backroom tactics to silence the minority. Under his reign, from 2007 to 2015, he exploited Senate rules to bypass committees, thereby avoiding serious analysis or debate of major legislation, and prevented the minority party from offering amendments to an extent never before seen in American democracy. It’s no wonder that Congress’s approval ratings reached record lows during his tenure, and voters ultimately gave control of the upper chamber back to Republicans.

The late Sen. Robert Byrd, a Democrat from West Virginia and the longest serving member of Congress in American history, understood the critical role the Senate plays as a check and balance in our system of government. He regularly spoke about the need to protect the Senate minority’s right to offer amendments and engage in debate. Both were necessary, he said, for “the liberties of the people will remain secure.”

If Democrats are given control of the Senate next week, the new leadership will all but certainly return to the precedents set by Reid. This prospect should concern Americans of every political persuasion. Equally dangerous, if Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonButtigieg stands in as Pence for Harris's debate practice Senate GOP sees early Supreme Court vote as political booster shot Poll: 51 percent of voters want to abolish the electoral college MORE wins the White House as expected, the American people will lack a fundamental check and balance on the federal government’s willingness to spend money. This is precisely the scenario that Alexis de Tocqueville warned against when he wrote: “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

When the Senate stops working, so does our entire constitutional government. Laws are passed and implemented without the consent of the governed. Presidential appointments are pushed through without the full Senate fulfilling its Constitutional duty to advise and consent. Checks and balances and separation of powers – key pillars of our government – crumble away and we’re left with lopsided, unaccountable representation.

Regardless of the outcome of the presidential race, it will be more crucial than ever for the U.S. Senate to remain a strong check on the power of the executive branch. Senate Republicans have started work that they deserve a chance to finish, but more important, they have proven they are worthy of being trusted with control of the world’s greatest deliberative body.

Voters in states with competitive Senate races must ask themselves: Why should we give that body back to the very Party that brought its dignity into question just a few short years ago?

Nicholas Brady served as U.S. Treasury Secretary from 1988-93.

The views expressed by authors are their own and not the views of The Hill.