Abolish The Senate

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Most countries get by with one chamber just fine, so there is no reason for this country to have two.

In my adult life, the House has usually been worse than the Senate, so I think we should have two.

[Mehmentum]

The article lost me at "the Constitution then goes on to subordinate the people".

[Vega]

I like the Senate. I don't think American democracy should be a fully and wholly Greek style democracy. The Senate is a good check on the popular will and channels it constructively.

I would favor repeal of the 17th Amendment, anyway.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Obviously, the Senate isn't gonna be abolished, but the undemocratic system of electoral college hopefully by 2020, needs to definitely go. It doesn't allow for the Prez candidates to campaign in all the states only 9 states.  It definitely needs to go and allow for some type of national popular vote election.

[Bigby]

I have a feeling like left-wingers only want the Senate abolished because the Republicans won it this past midterm. Ya know, I never demanded the Senate to be abolished when Harry Reid was Majority Leader.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I see no point of repealing the 17th Amendment. If you want to turn the Senate into a representation of state governments, why not to go all the way and institute an American Bundesrat?

Otherwise... please remember the Senate has a number of very important, exclusive prerogatives such as concluding treaties and confirming judicial and executive appointments. Given that, I'd rather have Senators being elected by the people of their respective states rather than a bunch of obscure legislators.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

An idea of proportionally-based Senate is interesting, although only if Senators are elected at-large (so they would continue to represent "states", as opposed to districts). With districts, it's just another House of Representatives and there's no point of having two Houses.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I have a feeling like left-wingers only want the Senate abolished because the Republicans won it this past midterm. Ya know, I never demanded the Senate to be abolished when Harry Reid was Majority Leader.

I've been saying this for a while. For example, here is a post of mine from after the Republicans won the House but Democrats had the Senate.

Please, please let democracy work. Abolish the filibuster.

The Senate is highly undemocratic to begin with. California has 66 times the population of Wyoming, and yet they have the same number of Senators, and the power of Senators is determined by seniority and not the size of their state. Of course all of the more reason to not have the Senators of the 21 least populous states be able to block all legislation.

[Türkisblau]

I have a feeling like left-wingers only want the Senate abolished because the Republicans won it this past midterm. Ya know, I never demanded the Senate to be abolished when Harry Reid was Majority Leader.

Have you read Sabato? This has been an idea for a long time, although I do agree that recent... developments concerning the composition of the Senate have sparked some debate.

[DrScholl]

I have a feeling like left-wingers only want the Senate abolished because the Republicans won it this past midterm. Ya know, I never demanded the Senate to be abolished when Harry Reid was Majority Leader.

That's not the reason, but people like Cory Gardner and Joni Ernst aren't exactly ringing endorsements for keeping it. There is no reason to have two houses when one house can do all the work that needs to be done.

[Türkisblau]

I have a feeling like left-wingers only want the Senate abolished because the Republicans won it this past midterm. Ya know, I never demanded the Senate to be abolished when Harry Reid was Majority Leader.

That's not the reason, but people like Cory Gardner and Joni Ernst aren't exactly ringing endorsements for keeping it. There is no reason to have two houses when one house can do all the work that needs to be done.

No, there are plenty of reasons to keep the Senate. Have you taken a class in government? Not to mention your extremely partisan calling out of Gardner (really? Gardner seems alright...) and Ernst.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

An advantage of the Senate is that it has staggered terms.

An advantage of the House is that it's closer to being apportioned by population.

[DrScholl]

I have a feeling like left-wingers only want the Senate abolished because the Republicans won it this past midterm. Ya know, I never demanded the Senate to be abolished when Harry Reid was Majority Leader.

That's not the reason, but people like Cory Gardner and Joni Ernst aren't exactly ringing endorsements for keeping it. There is no reason to have two houses when one house can do all the work that needs to be done.

No, there are plenty of reasons to keep the Senate. Have you taken a class in government? Not to mention your extremely partisan calling out of Gardner (really? Gardner seems alright...) and Ernst.

Gardner supports personhood and went back and forth about his ideology during the campaign. He is not all right. No one in a blue state who support Mitch McConnell leading the Senate is all right, they are too far right.

What are the reasons for keeping the Senate? It's redundant to have two houses passing the same bills and lacks efficiency.

[Türkisblau]

I have a feeling like left-wingers only want the Senate abolished because the Republicans won it this past midterm. Ya know, I never demanded the Senate to be abolished when Harry Reid was Majority Leader.

That's not the reason, but people like Cory Gardner and Joni Ernst aren't exactly ringing endorsements for keeping it. There is no reason to have two houses when one house can do all the work that needs to be done.

No, there are plenty of reasons to keep the Senate. Have you taken a class in government? Not to mention your extremely partisan calling out of Gardner (really? Gardner seems alright...) and Ernst.

Gardner supports personhood and went back and forth about his ideology during the campaign. He is not all right. No one in a blue state who support Mitch McConnell leading the Senate is all right, they are too far right.

What are the reasons for keeping the Senate? It's redundant to have two houses passing the same bills and lacks efficiency.

He seems to have "evolved" on the issue. I trust him about Personhood about as much as Obama on gay marriage
The Democratic Party failed in the midterms. It's our fault that McConnell is Majority Leader.

Yep... definitely not taken a class in government. Off the top of my head, it goes along with the theme of divided power in the United States government. Tyranny of the majority is prevented through the house, which is popularly elected, from gaining too much power, in essence providing moderation and a check on unbridled power from a too-powerful House of Reps. Imagine the 2010 wave but worse, with a radical congress that had the ability to override a veto. That's what our founders feared. To not understand the importance of the Senate is to not understand the layout of the government and the intent of the founders.
Now I know why mandatory classes in gov. are important.

[DrScholl]

I have a feeling like left-wingers only want the Senate abolished because the Republicans won it this past midterm. Ya know, I never demanded the Senate to be abolished when Harry Reid was Majority Leader.

That's not the reason, but people like Cory Gardner and Joni Ernst aren't exactly ringing endorsements for keeping it. There is no reason to have two houses when one house can do all the work that needs to be done.

No, there are plenty of reasons to keep the Senate. Have you taken a class in government? Not to mention your extremely partisan calling out of Gardner (really? Gardner seems alright...) and Ernst.

Gardner supports personhood and went back and forth about his ideology during the campaign. He is not all right. No one in a blue state who support Mitch McConnell leading the Senate is all right, they are too far right.

What are the reasons for keeping the Senate? It's redundant to have two houses passing the same bills and lacks efficiency.

He seems to have "evolved" on the issue. I trust him about Personhood about as much as Obama on gay marriage
The Democratic Party failed in the midterms. It's our fault that McConnell is Majority Leader.

Yep... definitely not taken a class in government. Off the top of my head, it goes along with the theme of divided power in the United States government. Tyranny of the majority is prevented through the house, which is popularly elected, from gaining too much power, in essence providing moderation and a check on unbridled power from a too-powerful House of Reps. Imagine the 2010 wave but worse, with a radical congress that had the ability to override a veto. That's what our founders feared.

Gardner changed positions more than once, but that's up to Colorado to learn from since they elected him. But whatever you want to believe.

I've studied government for 20 years, you just started posting on this forum recently, so yeah, don't educate me. For one thing, all that talk about tyranny is pointless, since plenty of counties have one house and nothing bad has happened there. Even Nebraska has one legislative house and there has been no tyranny or unbridled power there. Cities only have one council and counties only have one board, and things work more effectively there than they do federally. Platitudes aren't a good answer, efficiency is the point and a unicameral Congress would be highly more efficient.

[Türkisblau]

I have a feeling like left-wingers only want the Senate abolished because the Republicans won it this past midterm. Ya know, I never demanded the Senate to be abolished when Harry Reid was Majority Leader.

That's not the reason, but people like Cory Gardner and Joni Ernst aren't exactly ringing endorsements for keeping it. There is no reason to have two houses when one house can do all the work that needs to be done.

No, there are plenty of reasons to keep the Senate. Have you taken a class in government? Not to mention your extremely partisan calling out of Gardner (really? Gardner seems alright...) and Ernst.

Gardner supports personhood and went back and forth about his ideology during the campaign. He is not all right. No one in a blue state who support Mitch McConnell leading the Senate is all right, they are too far right.

What are the reasons for keeping the Senate? It's redundant to have two houses passing the same bills and lacks efficiency.

He seems to have "evolved" on the issue. I trust him about Personhood about as much as Obama on gay marriage
The Democratic Party failed in the midterms. It's our fault that McConnell is Majority Leader.

Yep... definitely not taken a class in government. Off the top of my head, it goes along with the theme of divided power in the United States government. Tyranny of the majority is prevented through the house, which is popularly elected, from gaining too much power, in essence providing moderation and a check on unbridled power from a too-powerful House of Reps. Imagine the 2010 wave but worse, with a radical congress that had the ability to override a veto. That's what our founders feared.

Gardner changed positions more than once, but that's up to Colorado to learn from since they elected him. But whatever you want to believe.

I've studied government for 20 years, you just started posting on this forum recently, so yeah, don't educate me. For one thing, all that talk about tyranny is pointless, since plenty of counties have one house and nothing bad has happened there. Even Nebraska has one legislative house and there has been no tyranny or unbridled power there. Cities only have one council and counties only have one board, and things work more effectively there than they do federally. Platitudes aren't a good answer, efficiency is the point and a unicameral Congress would be highly more efficient.

I believe that we share a fundamental difference in views here, then. It also nonsensical to try to apply the workings in somewhere like Nebraska or the country/local level with a nation of 300 million people. One thing you can't do is say there is no reason, as there are clear reasons to support the Senate whether you agree or disagree with them.
If efficiency is great, why don't we do away with it altogether and found a one-party state? Obviously division of powers is worthless, amirite?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I have a feeling like left-wingers only want the Senate abolished because the Republicans won it this past midterm. Ya know, I never demanded the Senate to be abolished when Harry Reid was Majority Leader.

Given that the House is also under Republican control (and that Jacobin is not particularly pro-Democratic), that's probably not the case.

[DrScholl]

I have a feeling like left-wingers only want the Senate abolished because the Republicans won it this past midterm. Ya know, I never demanded the Senate to be abolished when Harry Reid was Majority Leader.

That's not the reason, but people like Cory Gardner and Joni Ernst aren't exactly ringing endorsements for keeping it. There is no reason to have two houses when one house can do all the work that needs to be done.

No, there are plenty of reasons to keep the Senate. Have you taken a class in government? Not to mention your extremely partisan calling out of Gardner (really? Gardner seems alright...) and Ernst.

Gardner supports personhood and went back and forth about his ideology during the campaign. He is not all right. No one in a blue state who support Mitch McConnell leading the Senate is all right, they are too far right.

What are the reasons for keeping the Senate? It's redundant to have two houses passing the same bills and lacks efficiency.

He seems to have "evolved" on the issue. I trust him about Personhood about as much as Obama on gay marriage
The Democratic Party failed in the midterms. It's our fault that McConnell is Majority Leader.

Yep... definitely not taken a class in government. Off the top of my head, it goes along with the theme of divided power in the United States government. Tyranny of the majority is prevented through the house, which is popularly elected, from gaining too much power, in essence providing moderation and a check on unbridled power from a too-powerful House of Reps. Imagine the 2010 wave but worse, with a radical congress that had the ability to override a veto. That's what our founders feared.

Gardner changed positions more than once, but that's up to Colorado to learn from since they elected him. But whatever you want to believe.

I've studied government for 20 years, you just started posting on this forum recently, so yeah, don't educate me. For one thing, all that talk about tyranny is pointless, since plenty of counties have one house and nothing bad has happened there. Even Nebraska has one legislative house and there has been no tyranny or unbridled power there. Cities only have one council and counties only have one board, and things work more effectively there than they do federally. Platitudes aren't a good answer, efficiency is the point and a unicameral Congress would be highly more efficient.

I believe that we share a fundamental difference in views here, then. It also nonsensical to try to apply the workings in somewhere like Nebraska or the country/local level with a nation of 300 million people. One thing you can't do is say there is no reason, as there are clear reasons to support the Senate whether you agree or disagree with them.
If efficiency is great, why don't we do away with it altogether and found a one-party state? Obviously division of powers is worthless, amirite?

A unicameral Congress would hardly be a one party state. It makes perfect sense to make comparisons between government, since efficiency is more prominent when you have one legislative body and one executive.

[SWE]

I have a feeling like left-wingers only want the Senate abolished because the Republicans won it this past midterm. Ya know, I never demanded the Senate to be abolished when Harry Reid was Majority Leader.

lmao

[memphis]

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.

[Beet]

Irrelevant. Even if it were deemed Constitutional (see the equal representation clause of Article V), we would need 38 states to go for it, which would mean convincing small states to give up some of their power for a higher principle. This is a very high hurdle.

[krazen1211]

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?

Loathing of democracy. Look at how the white liberals in Wisconsin reacted after the people threw them out in the 2010 elections for being wretches.

[The Vorlon]

I think the Senate should be apportioned by population.

I also think the House should be districted without regard to state boundaries. Many districts would cross state lines, but that's just tough.

You mean like the House of representatives?

Wasn't having a House and a Senate kinda the whole point of "The Grand Compromise"

[© tweed]

Wasn't having a House and a Senate kinda the whole point of "The Grand Compromise"

those people are dead now.

[© tweed]

Irrelevant. Even if it were deemed Constitutional (see the equal representation clause of Article V), we would need 38 states to go for it, which would mean convincing small states to give up some of their power for a higher principle. This is a very high hurdle.

anyway, Beet is correct here.  we won't be able to abolish the Senate legally under the current constitution.  it would take a social upheaval and/or a new constitutional convention, or the devolution of the US into multiple countries.