Should the United States Senate be abolished?

[TNF]

Yes, it should be.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Nope (not some revolutionary left wing guy who sits on computer all day)

[Gass3268]

Yes or at least have it heavily reformed.

[TNF]

Nope (not some revolutionary left wing guy who sits on computer all day)

I actually spend the bulk of my time between the three jobs I have to work to make ends meet, but keep believing whatever you want to believe, dipsh#t.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Nope (not some revolutionary left wing guy who sits on computer all day)

I actually spend the bulk of my time between the three jobs I have to work to make ends meet, but keep believing whatever you want to believe, dipsh#t.

I believe I've seen you post that before; I meant instead of focusing on the Revolution. No disrepect intended on that front. My apologies.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Nope (sane).

[bedstuy]

I can think of good arguments for bicameralism and the idea of a longer tenured upper chamber.

I can't think of any good arguments for the Senate as presently constructed.  The idea of giving tiny states' voters hugely disproportionate say does not make sense in a 50 state county.   Arcane rules like the filibuster do not make sense.  And, just historically, the US Senate has generally been an impediment to positive social change from the slavery debates to civil rights to regulating robber barons and industrial capitalism to the unconscionable obstructionism under Obama.

So, I would be fine abolishing it or drastically changing the rules and apportionment among the states.

[Maxwell]

nah

[Frodo]

No.

I can think of good arguments for bicameralism and the idea of a longer tenured upper chamber.

I can't think of any good arguments for the Senate as presently constructed.  The idea of giving tiny states' voters hugely disproportionate say does not make sense in a 50 state county.   Arcane rules like the filibuster do not make sense.  And, just historically, the US Senate has generally been an impediment to positive social change from the slavery debates to civil rights to regulating robber barons and industrial capitalism to the unconscionable obstructionism under Obama.

So, I would be fine abolishing it or drastically changing the rules and apportionment among the states.

Think about all the bills passed by the Republican-led House that the Senate has killed over the years.

[IceSpear]

Not abolished, but it certainly needs to be reformed. End the asinine practice of a single Senator being able to hold up nominations and bills. Revert back to the talking filibuster.

[bedstuy]

No.

I can think of good arguments for bicameralism and the idea of a longer tenured upper chamber.

I can't think of any good arguments for the Senate as presently constructed.  The idea of giving tiny states' voters hugely disproportionate say does not make sense in a 50 state county.   Arcane rules like the filibuster do not make sense.  And, just historically, the US Senate has generally been an impediment to positive social change from the slavery debates to civil rights to regulating robber barons and industrial capitalism to the unconscionable obstructionism under Obama.

So, I would be fine abolishing it or drastically changing the rules and apportionment among the states.

Think about all the bills passed by the Republican-led House that the Senate has killed over the years.

That's true.  I was more thinking over the course of history in the long-run.  

The House has its own unique problems in not representing the views of the American people.  Over the course of history we haven't had the same type of sharp left/right divide between the cities and rural areas.  If you could reform the House to represent the national D vs. R vote somewhat closely and remove the absurd gerrymandering, you would solve that problem, but you would still need to address the Senate's undemocratic nature.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Not abolished, but it certainly needs to be reformed. End the asinine practice of a single Senator being able to hold up nominations and bills. Revert back to the talking filibuster.

[Frodo]

No.

I can think of good arguments for bicameralism and the idea of a longer tenured upper chamber.

I can't think of any good arguments for the Senate as presently constructed.  The idea of giving tiny states' voters hugely disproportionate say does not make sense in a 50 state county.   Arcane rules like the filibuster do not make sense.  And, just historically, the US Senate has generally been an impediment to positive social change from the slavery debates to civil rights to regulating robber barons and industrial capitalism to the unconscionable obstructionism under Obama.

So, I would be fine abolishing it or drastically changing the rules and apportionment among the states.

Think about all the bills passed by the Republican-led House that the Senate has killed over the years.

That's true.  I was more thinking over the course of history in the long-run.  

The House has its own unique problems in not representing the views of the American people.  Over the course of history we haven't had the same type of sharp left/right divide between the cities and rural areas.  If you could reform the House to represent the national D vs. R vote somewhat closely and remove the absurd gerrymandering, you would solve that problem, but you would still need to address the Senate's undemocratic nature.

As others have pointed out, even without gerrymandering, Democrats would still be at a geographical disadvantage in the House.  

The Senate is a two-edged sword -it can act to slow positive social change as you put it, but it can also act to slow negative social change.  The Senate is working as it was designed by the Founding Fathers -to paraphrase, by cooling legislation passed by the more democratic, hot-headed House in a saucer.  

The Senate prevents us from heading rashly in one direction or the other.    

 

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Nope (sane).

[Intell]

No, but the functions in the senate should seriously be reformed.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, but only as part of a reform package that also establishes some form of PR in the House.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Nope (sane).

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Reformed, but not eliminated.  We are still a nation made up of individual states.  I like the idea of the bicameral legislature.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Yes, but only as part of a reform package that also establishes some form of PR in the House.

PR in the House + some sort of compulsory voting.

[Frodo]

Yes, but only as part of a reform package that also establishes some form of PR in the House.

PR in the House + some sort of compulsory voting.

That might pass muster in Australia which was founded as a prison colony, but here in the United States where there is a higher emphasis on concepts like freedom and liberty, that would never fly.  The freedom to vote must go hand-in-hand with the freedom NOT to vote. 

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Not abolished, but it certainly needs to be reformed. End the asinine practice of a single Senator being able to hold up nominations and bills. Revert back to the talking filibuster.

[Murica!]

Well I'm an Anarchist so what do you think?

[Lief 🗽]

Yes. Arbitrary and artificial geographic entities should not have representation. Only people should have representation.

[Associate Justice PiT]

No.

I can think of good arguments for bicameralism and the idea of a longer tenured upper chamber.

I can't think of any good arguments for the Senate as presently constructed.  The idea of giving tiny states' voters hugely disproportionate say does not make sense in a 50 state county.   Arcane rules like the filibuster do not make sense.  And, just historically, the US Senate has generally been an impediment to positive social change from the slavery debates to civil rights to regulating robber barons and industrial capitalism to the unconscionable obstructionism under Obama.

So, I would be fine abolishing it or drastically changing the rules and apportionment among the states.

Think about all the bills passed by the Republican-led House that the Senate has killed over the years.

     This is a valid point to be made. The House tends to do lots of radical things, coming from both sides of the aisle. Having the Senate act as a brake on the actions of the House is useful in maintaining stability and moderation in our country.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Yes. Arbitrary and artificial geographic entities should not have representation. Only people should have representation.

What kind of representation system would you support? 535 at-large seats?