Abolish The Senate

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with the rationality of apportioning votes equally according to state. The greater willingness of the Senate to compromise is largely a result of (1) the filibuster, which makes compromise necessary to pass most bills (2) the greater independence of individual Senators, who have larger individual power bases and are not totally at the mercy of the Leader, (3) to some extent, Senatorial tradition. It'll be interesting to see whether this survives the massive increase in polarization jfern posted. My guess is it won't, and we see it's already crumbling.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with the rationality of apportioning votes equally according to state. The greater willingness of the Senate to compromise is largely a result of (1) the filibuster, which makes compromise necessary to pass most bills (2) the greater independence of individual Senators, who have larger individual power bases and are not totally at the mercy of the Leader, (3) to some extent, Senatorial tradition. It'll be interesting to see whether this survives the massive increase in polarization jfern posted. My guess is it won't, and we see it's already crumbling.

It is a relative equation, it will always be less polarized then the house.

The constituencies being as they are is what determines the independence of the Senators. Small state's can be outnumbered in a proportional system and desire to have the ability to force a compromise with the popular majority. You do not have that tradition in my view without the states being equally represented in the chamber.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I wonder if the anti-senate crowd is also opposed to China being underrepresented at the UN. How dare they give each member equal representation. I mean Lithuania (3 Million) and Nigeria (175 Million) each have an equal vote on the Security Council. That's super duper fascism.

Seriously though, why all this irrational Wyoming hate? I get that Wyoming may not have many people, but its still a state. That's the whole point. This "abolish the Senate" talk is just a smokescreen for the real idea being pushed: abolishing states and federalism. This is all about a top-down unitary governmental system, with all power being concentrated so that it can be used. Just read the "efficiency" arguments in this thread. It's all about making the trains run on time, even if the Governor and state legislature of a state don't like where the track is being placed. And given the number of state trifectas not controlled by Democrats, it makes sense in a sad way.

We have 2 houses of Congress for a bunch of reasons, but the main reason I was always taught in school was so that each interested party has representation in Congress. The people who live in the boundaries of the federal entity known as the United States get the House, the individual state entities which organized the federal entity in the first place got the Senate. It mirrors the power structure of our federal system.

Even with the 17th Amendment, the people are directly electing candidates to represent their State in the Senate. That doesn't mean the states don't represent the people ultimately, but the point was to have one chamber represent the state entities, the same entities that broke away from England, the same entities that were parties to the Treaty of Paris with England, the same entities that drafted the Articles of Confederation, and the same entities that later scrapped those and adopted the Constitution (concurrently allowing state conventions).

I get that some existing states seem small and unimportant now, but changing the rules and abolishing statehood just because of some bad election losses seems really petty (at best). If people in cities really hate Mike Enzi that much, they should move to Wyoming and run against him.

[justfollowingtheelections]

blackraisin, no one is hating Wyoming.  It just happens to be the smallest state.  And yes it may a state, but most states (with the exception of the 13 former british colonies and a few others) are arbitrary creations unlike countries which in most cases are very different from each other.  Sure Lithuania may only have 3 m. but they speak a different language than, say, Latvia.  Also the UN do not have the same power as the U.S. Senate.

[Beet]

Conservatives want to model the U.S. on the U.N. now? Well I never thought I'd see the day But in all seriousness, the U.N. is not a government, it's a treaty organization. And China isn't underrepresented. As one of the "Big Five" victors of WW2 (even though in reality it was 3), it has a permanent seat and veto power on the UNSC. Heck, before 1971, ROC/Taiwan with its 15 million people could have theoretically vetoed a UN resolution supported by the entire rest of the world! That thought alone shows why we need proportional representation.

[Mr. Reactionary]

blackraisin, no one is hating Wyoming.  It just happens to be the smallest state.  And yes it may a state, but most states (with the exception of the 13 former british colonies and a few others) are arbitrary creations unlike countries which in most cases are very different from each other.  Sure Lithuania may only have 3 m. but they speak a different language than, say, Latvia.  Also the UN do not have the same power as the U.S. Senate.

I was just using the UN as an example of a representative deliberative body where population isn't the only requisite for allocating representation. I agree that some of the states seem arbitrary, but they still had to go through a strict, formal process of approval. Other than Vermont and Texas, each new state was created from the unincorporated land of a state or the federal entity. They had to meet all the qualifications, get their Constitution approved, and it was still not guaranteed. Because the status quo has existed for so long I think we all forget how demanding and serious of a process new statehood is.

For instance in 1959, Alaska and Hawaii were given votes on their future status and could have chosen not to become states. That choice is a lot of power for Congress to entrust to what some would basically declare an empty wasteland. But they were given that choice because statehood is supposed to be special. And that special character transcends population. You acknowledge language for instance as being something to consider. Language, culture, geography, these all matter to statehood and that's another reason why I don't get the "abolish states" rhetoric. West Virginia and Hawaii need to have the same representation, because they have needs that are completely different.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Virginia and Hawaii I can see it, but not North Dakota and South Dakota

[Mr. Reactionary]

Virginia and Hawaii I can see it, but not North Dakota and South Dakota

I'd agree, just don't them that. I seem to recall a West Wing episode where someone from North Dakota gets really offended at being associated with the totally different people of South Dakota.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well you see we had to defeat Grover Cleveland.

[Nichlemn]

Though I'm not opposed to concept of bicameralism in general, especially for a large countries like the US, malapportionment is terrible and I whole-heartedly support stopping it. Maybe it could have been justified in a world where people bloc-voted their states interests, but this isn't close to the case in the current world.

[Joe Republic]

It was a big mistake for the court to rule as it did with Reynolds back in the 1960's. The Senate is not designed to be OMOV and applying a different standard to the State Senate's on the basis of the 14th Amendment only serves to create a contradiction between Article 1 and the 14th amendment.

Illinois would be much better if it had a State Senate by county. As it is now the South and Central parts of the state's can litterally get crapped on and that will increasingly be the case now that Southern ILL is just as Republican as Central ILL and thus Democrats have no incentive to appeal to that region. Everett Dirksen warned about this back then regarding Illinois.

So... permanent Republican supermajorities in about 40 states' Senates?  Cute fantasy!

Where did I ever mention such should be extended to the lower house in those state's? I said the exact opposite just a few posts ago. The big states would have a split legislature forcing compromise and better policy outcomes and ending partisan gerrymandering.

Where did I mention anything about extending it to the lower houses?!  Once again, your proposal would ensure permanent Republican majorities in most states' upper houses.  The unfortunate citizens of these states would flip back and forth between either total GOP control of both houses or split control between both parties.  I know that would be a GOP hack's wet dream, but for the rest of us it would be utterly appalling and completely ludicrous.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

@Blackraisin - Democrats would probably be better if they abolished the House, seeing as it is within the realms of possibility to retake the House, while it would require a wave of elephantine proportions  for the Democrats to retake the House.

As for me, I have a certain fondness for the Senate (unlike all State Senates), which is certainly a lot better than most country's upper houses. Perhaps it should be given slightly less power, rather than having equal rankings with the House; and the terms should be longer to accept only two Classes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It was a big mistake for the court to rule as it did with Reynolds back in the 1960's. The Senate is not designed to be OMOV and applying a different standard to the State Senate's on the basis of the 14th Amendment only serves to create a contradiction between Article 1 and the 14th amendment.

Illinois would be much better if it had a State Senate by county. As it is now the South and Central parts of the state's can litterally get crapped on and that will increasingly be the case now that Southern ILL is just as Republican as Central ILL and thus Democrats have no incentive to appeal to that region. Everett Dirksen warned about this back then regarding Illinois.

So... permanent Republican supermajorities in about 40 states' Senates?  Cute fantasy!

Where did I ever mention such should be extended to the lower house in those state's? I said the exact opposite just a few posts ago. The big states would have a split legislature forcing compromise and better policy outcomes and ending partisan gerrymandering.

Where did I mention anything about extending it to the lower houses?!  Once again, your proposal would ensure permanent Republican majorities in most states' upper houses.  The unfortunate citizens of these states would flip back and forth between either total GOP control of both houses or split control between both parties.  I know that would be a GOP hack's wet dream, but for the rest of us it would be utterly appalling and completely ludicrous.

You really think the Republicans are capable of winning state house districts in Chicago and NYC (Manhattan NYC not quirky Queens wards, Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn or Staten Island NYC)? Or running the table literally everywhere else in those state's? And if the Republicans moved to become competative, the Democrats would counter to compete likewise down/upstate.

[Joe Republic]

What?  Are you even reading my responses?  Clearly you don't understand them, but I'm curious to see if you're actually even reading them.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What?  Are you even reading my responses?  Clearly you don't understand them, but I'm curious to see if you're actually even reading them.

Actually I was trying to get ahead of your arguements. Hence when you mentioned supermajority Senate's, I emphasized the lower houses being Democratically dominated. You then said they would flip back and forth between total GOP control and split, which implies the GOP is capable of doing what it has not done since 1972 in NY and what 1996/1998 in ILL.

You kept emphasizing that "GOP Hacks would love..." but I would imagine hacks in both parties would find themselves disappointed. What GOP hack would get off on a massive Senate majority, that is then powerless to do anything without that similarly massively Dem lower House going along? Very few.

You also mentioned "most states", but like I said a homogenous state has little need for this, nor would it change much from a partisan standpoint in TX, FL or CA, or most small states. So littearly this option is only relevant to a few states like ILL and NY. It would help the Democrats in SC and there are a number of GOP counties that would vote for a Democratic Senator in NC, probably half of all the counties when combined with the Democratic ones.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Where did I say Delware should be by county? I said Illinois, historically divided between two regions one of which has the power to dominate the other and cause its interests to be ignore would be better served with a legislature that balances the two regions (Chicago dominated House and Downstate dominated Senate).

This couches those two regions as equal and completely leaves aside the reason why one "dominates" the other: there are a whole lot more people there.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'll never understand the fear mongering over this "tyranny of the 51%!" crap. I'm much more concerned with how a minority, from incredibly disproportionately represented areas, can utterly wreck a government without even making an effort, than I am for a properly elected and representative government functioning speedily.

Those arguments re: the Senate and the House make as much sense as when people get pissy about defending the Electoral College by saying "but then they'll just focus on the highest population areas! Only a few select states will get any attention!" even though a) this is bull****; a presidential candidate isn't just going to completely ignore entire regions unless he wants to ensure he turns people against him, and b) this is what happens now anyway. But I suppose that's a digression.

[Mister Mets]

It was never intended to be perfectly democratic.

It was never "intended" to be elected by the public either. Times changes. I'd support making them more like the House of Lords, with less real power. I don't know how people can honestly look at the Senate and not think it needs a serious overhaul.

A major factor is that the most prominent legislators tend to be Senators. It's an institution tailor-made to have prominent members, in comparison to the much larger House, where it's tougher for one individual to stand out.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Why is it that every time the left loses a big one, the proposals about how the nature of American Democracy need to change come out of the woodwork?

Agreed, though Republicans also do it as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'll never understand the fear mongering over this "tyranny of the 51%!" crap. I'm much more concerned with how a minority, from incredibly disproportionately represented areas, can utterly wreck a government without even making an effort, than I am for a properly elected and representative government functioning speedily.

Those arguments re: the Senate and the House make as much sense as when people get pissy about defending the Electoral College by saying "but then they'll just focus on the highest population areas! Only a few select states will get any attention!" even though a) this is bull****; a presidential candidate isn't just going to completely ignore entire regions unless he wants to ensure he turns people against him, and b) this is what happens now anyway. But I suppose that's a digression.

Conservatism, of the burkean variety, is founded on the notion that liberal democracy can just as easily be its own worst enemy and lead to the itself becoming a dictorship or an anarchy that then becomes a dictatorship once people cry out for stability and General Y comes riding in a horse to rescue the country. Therefore the popular will, whilst an importan facet of Republics, is necessarily one that must by checked by an opposing force or set of institutalionalized principles and structures.

You don't understand the motivation because you are a lefty, most lefties care not what means by which an objective is achieved and presume dangerously that such precedents will not be abused going forward. Therefore popular will can never be a malevolent force and yet yet the left has fought the end results of such (segregation and so forth) time and again. On the other hand, I would thought you of all people would understand the danger of the popular majority considering a certain string of a state constitutional amendments that were past over the last few cycles and means by which they are being systematically wiped out (Was that done mostly by popular majority or by one of those institutions slapping the popular majority down?).

[Boston Bread]

Most methods to prevent "tyranny of the majority" through disproportionate representation like unequal pop. districts and the electoral college never protect the most politically vulnerable, only select political minorities which happen to be primarily white and rural. Many of the groups who have the least representation in politics are made even weaker under these systems.
All the checks of the American political system has not protected the rights racial minorities for most of its history. That injustice is much more lasting and severe than whatever grievances a rural downstate IL county has. If the state government is not implementing what they wish, that's expected when their party is normally in the minority. At least the representation they get is proportional to their population, which couldn't be said of African Americans.