No more Senate, but the Governors get legislative veto power as an assembly

[Blue3]

Let's say the United States Senate is abolished, but in its place the US Governors can now vote to veto legislation coming out of the House. If 2/3 of Governors vote to veto a bill passed by the House, then it is vetoed before being reviewed by the President. The Governors cannot introduce legislation, just veto or let pass legislation coming from the House.

Would this be an improvement over the status quo?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

This rather undercuts the whole idea of the separation of powers.

[7,052,770]

Governor voting power should be weighted by population, or else this could be subject to a lot of abuse.

[Blue3]

This rather undercuts the whole idea of the separation of powers.

Just like the President having veto power undercuts separation of powers?

It's never been about separation of powers, but checks & balances in a functioning system of government.

[JA]

If we abolish the Senate, then we should replace it with nothing.

[Sir Mohamed]

Terrible idea. The federal and state govts shouldn't get in each others way and each have own responsibilities.

[courts]

no

[McNukes™ #NYCMMWasAHero]

I would support this.

[jaichind]

I prefer a pre 17th amendment way of electing senators

[Orser67]

How would this system handle confirmation of appointments and ratification of treaties?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

This rather undercuts the whole idea of the separation of powers.

Just like the President having veto power undercuts separation of powers?

Except it doesn't?

It's never been about separation of powers, but checks & balances in a functioning system of government.

I mean, "checks & balances" is arguably more of a fiction in the modern day than the notion that the president doesn't exercise legislative powers, but sure.

[Blue3]

How would this system handle confirmation of appointments and ratification of treaties?

The House.