Should the Senate be reformed?

[Skill and Chance]

Everyone seems to think passing bills (i.e., "getting things done") is inherently good. I dispute this notion.

Yes, with it being possible to get a majority in the Senate without representing anywhere close to a majority of voters, there's a good argument for an additional check against too much right wing or left wing weirdness getting through.  On the other hand, this can and does encourage presidents to act unilaterally whenever possible.  So it's a close call for me on things like the filibuster.

[King]

Maybe. I don't really know how it can be fixed though

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

As someone who is pretty conservative in terms of our constitutional structure, I voted no because the system set up by our Founding Fathers has well served us.  My logic here is the same I use in regards to the Electoral College - it's part of the Founding Father's non-majoritorian vision.  The EC and the Senate overrepresent small states.  Does that matter?  Of course it does.  The Senate does not represent the people in proportion to population - it represents states.  The Virginia Plan was not approved by the Founding Fathers - it was a compromise, between the big states and the small ones.  That's why the Senate shall not change, and neither should the Electoral College.  I mention them in tandem because the logic supporting them is one and the same.  As they say, don't fix what ain't broken.

[Free Bird]

Everyone seems to think passing bills (i.e., "getting things done") is inherently good. I dispute this notion.

Um. Why? We have very pressing issues to take care of, and forming a consensus is vital.

[Sumner 1868]

Everyone seems to think passing bills (i.e., "getting things done") is inherently good. I dispute this notion.

Um. Why? We have very pressing issues to take care of, and forming a consensus is vital.

I'm not disputing that. But there's seems to be this idea that simply passing bills for the sake of it is good.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I'm not sure what the Senate can't stop that the Supreme Court can't simply just say whether it is or isn't unconstitutional or could be vetoed by the President as needed.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

It should but it won't. As long as we're trafficking in impossible hypotheticals, I think you could do a lot worse than politicus's idea.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I'm largely happy with the structure of the Senate as is. The biggest change I would want to see is a return to the talking filibuster. It should take a little effort to filibuster bills, rather than it just being "I have 41 Senators".

[Del Tachi]

Yes, one good reform would be to Constitutionally require 60 (or even 66) votes to evoke cloture.  Nix the "nuclear option" once and for all. 

[Citizen Hats]

It should be stripped of most of it's powers and reduced to an advisory committee of state appointed representatives

[Rooney]

No. I like that it is where bills go to die. Was that not the original purpose? Of course it was, that was a rhetorical question.

[Associate Justice PiT]

No. I like that it is where bills go to die. Was that not the original purpose? Of course it was, that was a rhetorical question.

     But...but...but...PASS EVERYTHING. [/sarcasm]

[Stranger in a strange land]

Yes:

- Elect it from party lists based on nationwide PV
- Don't get rid of the filibuster, but make them actually read the phone book at midnight

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Congress needs to pass a line item veto bill, which was thought of during the Dubya Bush administration.

Scholars were opposed to this due to the fact, most were worried about Dubya doing things extraconstitutional anyways.

But, most govs have this power because of the balance budget amendments in most states. But, it will stop bills from dying in senate and solve the problem of Senate not passing a budget.

[Citizen Hats]

No. I like that it is where bills go to die. Was that not the original purpose? Of course it was, that was a rhetorical question.

     But...but...but...PASS EVERYTHING. [/sarcasm]

Firstly, not everything that passes the house would be passed. If the house were the final word on legislation in Congress,, then the house would be forced to take a more responsible approach to legislating. There would be much less bullsh**t-that-will-die-in-conference and more serious governing

[SteveRogers]

Congress needs to pass a line item veto bill, which was thought of during the Dubya Bush administration.

Scholars were opposed to this due to the fact, most were worried about Dubya doing things extraconstitutional anyways.

But, most govs have this power because of the balance budget amendments in most states. But, it will stop bills from dying in senate and solve the problem of Senate not passing a budget.

Clinton had the Line Item Veto. It was held to be unconstitutional. You'd need a constitutional amendment. Also, it's a bad idea.

Everyone seems to think passing bills (i.e., "getting things done") is inherently good. I dispute this notion.

The Senate was indeed designed to slow down the legislative process and kill bills as a check against the passions of the majority and swings in public opinion. However, there's a big difference between that function and a chamber where a small number of senators can stop the process entirely, not by voting against bills but rather by refusing to have any vote take place at all. The filibuster was not common practice in the Senate for the majority of the country's history, and the Senate served its screening function well without it during that time. 

[Associate Justice PiT]

No. I like that it is where bills go to die. Was that not the original purpose? Of course it was, that was a rhetorical question.

     But...but...but...PASS EVERYTHING. [/sarcasm]

Firstly, not everything that passes the house would be passed. If the house were the final word on legislation in Congress,, then the house would be forced to take a more responsible approach to legislating. There would be much less bullsh**t-that-will-die-in-conference and more serious governing

     Except the House isn't going to take a more responsible approach to legislating. Its structure is a major impediment to that happening, with so many representatives coming from districts gerrymandered to be extremely partisan.

     The Senate suffers the same issues to some extent, but its nature is effectively gerrymander-proof. While some changes would be nice to check the power of the Senate, it performs a very important role that the House alone cannot without extensive reform.

[Sumner 1868]

It should be stripped of most of it's powers and reduced to an advisory committee of state appointed representatives

Basically, back to 1911?

[Citizen Hats]

It should be stripped of most of it's powers and reduced to an advisory committee of state appointed representatives

Basically, back to 1911?

Well, no

The Senate of 1911 was as an immensely powerful institution that was much less accountable to the public. I would envision the senate more as a talk-shop of state interests with no real power

[Badger]

Yes. Drastically reduce the power of the fillibuster or remove it entirely, plus similarly curtail/remove the power of individual senators to places holds on bills or nominees.

[Vega]

For sure. Remove their ability to confirm the President's nominees for anything except the Supreme Court. Also get rid of the filibuster and have all Senators elected by the Alternative Vote in top two primaries.

[Badger]

For sure. Remove their ability to confirm the President's nominees for anything except the Supreme Court. Also get rid of the filibuster and have all Senators elected by the Alternative Vote in top two primaries.

Yuck and yuck, IMHO.

[politicallefty]

The Senate suffers the same issues to some extent, but its nature is effectively gerrymander-proof. While some changes would be nice to check the power of the Senate, it performs a very important role that the House alone cannot without extensive reform.

I would say the Senate is gerrymandered, but it's basically hardwired into the system. First of all, many states were not drawn in a logical way, but only to increase power in the Senate for a particular side (or to keep balance between free and slave states). Secondly, the disparity between the most populous and least populous states is many times higher than it was when the Senate was created.

I also agree that the House alone is not capable to govern this country without serious reforms. As much I'd prefer a unicameral parliamentary system, I would be very nervous to concentrate that amount of power in that one body. Ideally, I would like to see the House significantly reformed (increased in size, independent redistricting, etc.) and have this country move to a parliamentary system.

I think all votes in the Senate should be subject to majority rule. I would also change the Senate to an amendatory body. The Senate would only be able to act on bills passed by the House, and, with respect to money bills could only take an up or down vote (similar to the Australian Senate). I could also see reducing the terms of Senators to four years, having the entire Senate up for election along with the House (which would also, ideally, be changed to a four-year term as well).

[Associate Justice PiT]

The Senate suffers the same issues to some extent, but its nature is effectively gerrymander-proof. While some changes would be nice to check the power of the Senate, it performs a very important role that the House alone cannot without extensive reform.

I would say the Senate is gerrymandered, but it's basically hardwired into the system. First of all, many states were not drawn in a logical way, but only to increase power in the Senate for a particular side (or to keep balance between free and slave states). Secondly, the disparity between the most populous and least populous states is many times higher than it was when the Senate was created.

I also agree that the House alone is not capable to govern this country without serious reforms. As much I'd prefer a unicameral parliamentary system, I would be very nervous to concentrate that amount of power in that one body. Ideally, I would like to see the House significantly reformed (increased in size, independent redistricting, etc.) and have this country move to a parliamentary system.

I think all votes in the Senate should be subject to majority rule. I would also change the Senate to an amendatory body. The Senate would only be able to act on bills passed by the House, and, with respect to money bills could only take an up or down vote (similar to the Australian Senate). I could also see reducing the terms of Senators to four years, having the entire Senate up for election along with the House (which would also, ideally, be changed to a four-year term as well).

     I thought about the factor of some states being admitted for partisan purposes, but it is a far cry from districts being fully redrawn every ten years. That is why I said it is "effectively" gerrymander-proof.

     Having the entire Senate up for vote at the same time largely defeats the purpose of the Senate, which is to be an inertia machine checking the whims of popular opinion. While your suggestions are generally quite reasonable, the opinions of many other red avatars on this matter makes me thankful that they were not consulted in the drafting of the Constitution.

[Sumner 1868]

Since nobody has seemingly realized this, I must point out an overhaul of the Senate would need to receive passage...in the Senate.