Senate term lenght

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Discuss.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Just right.

[Free Palestine]

Fine, but there should be three members for each state, so that every state has a Senate election for every cycle.

[Username MechaRFK]

Fine, but there should be three members for each state, so that every state has a Senate election for every cycle.

[tpfkaw]

Too long, the correct term length would be zero years.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Way too long.  It should be four years.

Or abolish the damn thing.

[Napoleon]

Fine, but there should be three members for each state, so that every state has a Senate election for every cycle.

This is a good idea, if we absolutely have to keep the Senate.

[greenforest32]

Fine, but there should be three members for each state, so that every state has a Senate election for every cycle.

Disagree. We should have 4 year terms for both the House and Senate with all members up for reelection every election and these elections should be synched with the presidential election so people can vote for a party agenda in both the legislative and executive branch with one election.

The 1/3 turnover every 2-yr and 6 year term of the Senate is pointless. Legislatures are partisan and the upper chamber is no exception. The only difference should be the base of representation (population for the house, states for the senate), not some fancy prestigious filibustering club that slows everything down just for the sake of it.

The House and Senate working together to pass identical legislation is an inherently deliberative process. The Senate needs to lose some of its inefficiency.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The House and Senate working together to pass identical legislation is an inherently deliberative process. The Senate needs to lose some of its inefficiency.

The people who wrote the Constitution by and large saw government as a necessary evil.  They deliberately kept it from being as efficient as possible so as to avoid concentrating power.  For example, that's why they had a separate Electoral College elect the President instead of simply having the Congress do it.  Quite a few States back in 1787 had their executive elected by their legislature, so its not as if they didn't have examples to draw upon.

[Free Palestine]

Oh, and it should be elected by the state legislatures again.

[minionofmidas]

It should be vaguely proportional. Not necessarily exactly so, but the current state of affairs is ridiculous and a serious problem. Then keep its electoral arrangements roughly as they are (fairly lengthy term, partial renewal, details are unimportant), lengthen the House term by a year or two, and make the President elected by the House. Ie, ensure he (at least usually) always has the support of the Lower House, but create no such linkage for the Upper House. Make the Upper House marginally less powerful than the Lower (full equality exists in Italy, and sort of in the US, where the Senate is arguably more powerful, net speaking), but also not a complete joke as in some countries that might just as well abolish it.
That seems to be what works best. Just saying. No, actually it'd be preferrable to have that President be a Prime Minister and have some more-or-less elected, purely or near-purely figurehead President. But ensure he doesn't cost too ridiculously much.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Way too long.  It should be four years.

Or abolish the damn thing.

And let NY have more Represenatives then Alabama? No way. The Senate and House terms are perfect.

[Joe Republic]

Or abolish the damn thing.

And let NY have more Represenatives then Alabama? No way.

Heaven forbid that a state with 19.3 million people should have more representation than a state with 4.7 million people.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Oh, and it should be elected by the state legislatures again.

I have never understood why anybody wants this.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Or abolish the damn thing.

And let NY have more Representatives then Alabama? No way.

Heaven forbid that a state with 19.3 million people should have more representation than a state with 4.7 million people.

If we abolished the Senate (which is always controlled by Democrats anyway), then we would have a continually Democratic controlled Congress. NY should have more Represenatives in the House, but,  the Senate adds perfect balance.

[republicanism]

The 1/3 turnover every 2-yr and 6 year term of the Senate is pointless. Legislatures are partisan and the upper chamber is no exception. The only difference should be the base of representation (population for the house, states for the senate), not some fancy prestigious filibustering club that slows everything down just for the sake of it.

The House and Senate working together to pass identical legislation is an inherently deliberative process. The Senate needs to lose some of its inefficiency.

I think the main problem of this is the filibustering you mentioned, and the fact that you need at least 60 Senators to get things done. Short terms wouldn't change that.

[Joe Republic]

If we abolished the Senate (which is always controlled by Democrats anyway), then we would have a continually Democratic controlled Congress. NY should have more Represenatives in the House, but,  the Senate adds perfect balance.

None of that made any sense whatsoever.  Literally none.  I wouldn't even know where to start with it.

[specific_name]

The term length is fine, though the Senate should be proportional to population. The difference between the most and least populous state in the beginning was nothing compared to what that gap is currently. The mountain states have far too much power to block legislation. The staggered terms with 6 year limits though were actually a pretty good idea and I would certainly support keeping them.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

If we abolished the Senate (which is always controlled by Democrats anyway), then we would have a continually Democratic controlled Congress. NY should have more Represenatives in the House, but,  the Senate adds perfect balance.

None of that made any sense whatsoever.  Literally none.  I wouldn't even know where to start with it.

Come to think of it, my wording was awfull. My point is, the Senate is meant to protect against waves. The House can go a certain way every two years, but the Senate hardly changes.

[republicanism]

The House can go a certain way every two years, but the Senate hardly changes.

Throughout history, the Senate changed sides just as frequently as the house did.

[Joe Republic]

If we abolished the Senate (which is always controlled by Democrats anyway), then we would have a continually Democratic controlled Congress. NY should have more Represenatives in the House, but,  the Senate adds perfect balance.

None of that made any sense whatsoever.  Literally none.  I wouldn't even know where to start with it.

Come to think of it, my wording was awfull. My point is, the Senate is meant to protect against waves. The House can go a certain way every two years, but the Senate hardly changes.

In 1980 the Senate flipped to the Republicans, and then back to the Democrats in 1986.  The House remained in Democratic control throughout.

In 2001 the Senate flipped to the Democrats, and then back to the Republicans in 2002.  The House remained in Republican control throughout.

In fact, 2010 was the first time in 80 years that the House flipped control, but not the Senate.  It's more often been the other way around.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

If we abolished the Senate (which is always controlled by Democrats anyway), then we would have a continually Democratic controlled Congress. NY should have more Represenatives in the House, but,  the Senate adds perfect balance.

None of that made any sense whatsoever.  Literally none.  I wouldn't even know where to start with it.

Come to think of it, my wording was awfull. My point is, the Senate is meant to protect against waves. The House can go a certain way every two years, but the Senate hardly changes.

In 1980 the Senate flipped to the Republicans, and then back to the Democrats in 1986.  The House remained in Democratic control throughout.

In 2001 the Senate flipped to the Democrats, and then back to the Republicans in 2002.  The House remained in Republican control throughout.

In fact, 2010 was the first time in 80 years that the House flipped control, but not the Senate.  It's more often been the other way around.

But the point is, one house changes every two years, the other, every 6, in order to avoid a mass takeover. The Tea Party needs to hold on to 2016 to actually take complete controll of the Legislature and Presidency.

[Free Palestine]

If we're going to make the Senate proportional to population, we might as well just abolish it.

The Senate is supposed to be the body that represents the state governments, which are elected by the people.  It ensures that the governments that form the U.S. at a subnational level have some say in federal matters, as the United States is a federation, and not a unitary state.

Now, I'm not all that crazy about "state's rights" anymore.  The states are just arbitrary.  The upper house would, ideally, be drawn from more meaningful administrative units, like states redrawn to fit things like metropolitan areas and such.  But of course, that doesn't mean I support some quasi-oligarchal unitary state some people seem to envision -- power should still lie heavily in these redrawn states.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Oh, and it should be elected by the state legislatures again.

I have never understood why anybody wants this.

The idea was that the Senate would be a body that acted to preserve the power of the States and help keep the Federal government weak.  Of course, people who think having a weak Federal government is a bad idea don't like the idea of a Senate.

[Joe Republic]

But the point is, one house changes every two years, the other, every 6, in order to avoid a mass takeover.

I know that, thank you, but history has proved rather frequently that it doesn't always work out that way.