Abolish The Senate

[DrScholl]

I've thought that this should happen for quite awhile. The Senate is quite obsolete and it really needs to go now that certain people have been elected to it. A unicameral house drawn by a federally appointed, independent commission is the way to go.

[DrScholl]

Article: "Oh no, us poor socialists can't get elected in Wyoming. Abolish the rules!"

That's more that logic of Republicans who can't win in blue states and want to change how electoral voters are allocated. The Senate isn't needed anymore, period.

[DrScholl]

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?

Are you unaware of the proposals by Republican legislatures to hand electoral votes to the Republican nominee based on gerrymandered districts?

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

[DrScholl]

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?

Are you unaware of the proposals by Republican legislatures to hand electoral votes to the Republican nominee based on gerrymandered districts?

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

No different from the Democrats coming up with the national popular vote compact after 2000. There's quite a bit of daylight between that and abolishing 1/2 of a branch of government.

Not that going to the House alone would help the Dems much.

The popular vote compact isn't an attempt at gaming the system, but trying use heavily gerrymandered districts to guarantee your party the presidency is.

One house drawn fairly by a federal, independent commission would do just fine.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[DrScholl]

The reason the court ruled that state senate districts had to be drawn equally, was because the rural counties were getting a highly disproportionate amount of representation. In California, Los Angeles County had only one state Senator, while several rural counties were distributed into several low population districts.