Abolish The Senate

[Mr. Reactionary]

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.

[Mr. Reactionary]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.