Democratic vs Representative Senate

[Nyvin]

The Senate is undemocratic at it's foundation.   The idea of the states themselves being represented in the Federal Government and not the "people of" the states being represented is an antiquated, outdated model going back to fiefdom and feudalism.

The entire system needs to be revamped from the ground up.   Having a smaller body of the legislature (fewer members) is a good thing for things like confirmations and as a check on an over zealous House...but the Senators should not be representing such enormously different groups of people (Wyoming having the same number of Senators as California is a travesty for example).

[Tintrlvr]

The Senate is undemocratic at it's foundation.   The idea of the states themselves being represented in the Federal Government and not the "people of" the states being represented is an antiquated, outdated model going back to fiefdom and feudalism.

The entire system needs to be revamped from the ground up.   Having a smaller body of the legislature (fewer members) is a good thing for things like confirmations and as a check on an over zealous House...but the Senators should not be representing such enormously different groups of people (Wyoming having the same number of Senators as California is a travesty for example).

Right. The Senate could work with no changes to membership rules if it was primarily advisory, i.e., it had powers roughly equivalent to those given to the Canadian Senate or the British House of Lords. In that case, it could also probably go back to being an appointed body. As it is, where it is as powerful or more powerful than the House in almost all ways, it would need to be thrown out entirely to be fair.

[muon2]

The Senate is undemocratic at it's foundation.   The idea of the states themselves being represented in the Federal Government and not the "people of" the states being represented is an antiquated, outdated model going back to fiefdom and feudalism.

The entire system needs to be revamped from the ground up.   Having a smaller body of the legislature (fewer members) is a good thing for things like confirmations and as a check on an over zealous House...but the Senators should not be representing such enormously different groups of people (Wyoming having the same number of Senators as California is a travesty for example).

Right. The Senate could work with no changes to membership rules if it was primarily advisory, i.e., it had powers roughly equivalent to those given to the Canadian Senate or the British House of Lords. In that case, it could also probably go back to being an appointed body. As it is, where it is as powerful or more powerful than the House in almost all ways, it would need to be thrown out entirely to be fair.

One should remember that the Senate was never intended to be a democratic body. It was intended to be representative of the sovereign states, much as the Council of the EU is represents the member states and acts in parallel with the Parliament of the EU to pass legislation. In that sense it's no more outdated than the EU.

If one looks at the EU as a model, then making the Senate a democratic or appointed body doesn't capture the need to represent sovereign states. Instead one could require more sophisticated rules for the Senate to pass or block legislation. For example, the Council requires 55% of the governments and 65% of the population to pass legislation from the Parliament. That's not dissimilar from the 60% cloture rule for legislation in the Senate, so it wouldn't take that much change to correct for population as the EU does.

[Tintrlvr]

The Senate is undemocratic at it's foundation.   The idea of the states themselves being represented in the Federal Government and not the "people of" the states being represented is an antiquated, outdated model going back to fiefdom and feudalism.

The entire system needs to be revamped from the ground up.   Having a smaller body of the legislature (fewer members) is a good thing for things like confirmations and as a check on an over zealous House...but the Senators should not be representing such enormously different groups of people (Wyoming having the same number of Senators as California is a travesty for example).

Right. The Senate could work with no changes to membership rules if it was primarily advisory, i.e., it had powers roughly equivalent to those given to the Canadian Senate or the British House of Lords. In that case, it could also probably go back to being an appointed body. As it is, where it is as powerful or more powerful than the House in almost all ways, it would need to be thrown out entirely to be fair.

One should remember that the Senate was never intended to be a democratic body. It was intended to be representative of the sovereign states, much as the Council of the EU is represents the member states and acts in parallel with the Parliament of the EU to pass legislation. In that sense it's no more outdated than the EU.

If one looks at the EU as a model, then making the Senate a democratic or appointed body doesn't capture the need to represent sovereign states. Instead one could require more sophisticated rules for the Senate to pass or block legislation. For example, the Council requires 55% of the governments and 65% of the population to pass legislation from the Parliament. That's not dissimilar from the 60% cloture rule for legislation in the Senate, so it wouldn't take that much change to correct for population as the EU does.

I don't think the EU is a good model at all; the EU has necessarily very decentralized power because it's a bunch of countries cobbling together a union where many of them have very distinctive cultures and histories and independent power and political structures from one another. The US isn't really like that at all; the states are all fundamentally the same as one another (same parties and political systems, shared history, very similar cultures) when compared to the differences between the countries of the EU. Moreover, long-term, I think the EU should move away from a focus on its constituent nations, which is part of the problem of the EU being seen by many as fundamentally non-democratic.

I agree that the Senate would be fine as an appointed body if its power were substantially reduced to being purely an advisory entity, though, and maybe even would be improved right now by transitioning back to being an appointed body, though I don't really view the elected vs. appointed distinction as all that significant when it comes to the problems with the Senate.

[muon2]

I don't think the EU is a good model at all; the EU has necessarily very decentralized power because it's a bunch of countries cobbling together a union where many of them have very distinctive cultures and histories and independent power and political structures from one another. The US isn't really like that at all; the states are all fundamentally the same as one another (same parties and political systems, shared history, very similar cultures) when compared to the differences between the countries of the EU. Moreover, long-term, I think the EU should move away from a focus on its constituent nations, which is part of the problem of the EU being seen by many as fundamentally non-democratic.

I agree that the Senate would be fine as an appointed body if its power were substantially reduced to being purely an advisory entity, though, and maybe even would be improved right now by transitioning back to being an appointed body, though I don't really view the elected vs. appointed distinction as all that significant when it comes to the problems with the Senate.

This is about governance, not culture. I think you discount how much sovereign power still lies with each US state and how different their state constitutions are. There are actually 50 sets of state parties, with the umbrella of the two national parties. The state parties are often quite different in their priorities but recognize the need to coordinate at the national level. It's why there's no national primary election for president.

[Tintrlvr]

I don't think the EU is a good model at all; the EU has necessarily very decentralized power because it's a bunch of countries cobbling together a union where many of them have very distinctive cultures and histories and independent power and political structures from one another. The US isn't really like that at all; the states are all fundamentally the same as one another (same parties and political systems, shared history, very similar cultures) when compared to the differences between the countries of the EU. Moreover, long-term, I think the EU should move away from a focus on its constituent nations, which is part of the problem of the EU being seen by many as fundamentally non-democratic.

I agree that the Senate would be fine as an appointed body if its power were substantially reduced to being purely an advisory entity, though, and maybe even would be improved right now by transitioning back to being an appointed body, though I don't really view the elected vs. appointed distinction as all that significant when it comes to the problems with the Senate.

This is about governance, not culture. I think you discount how much sovereign power still lies with each US state and how different their state constitutions are. There are actually 50 sets of state parties, with the umbrella of the two national parties. The state parties are often quite different in their priorities but recognize the need to coordinate at the national level. It's why there's no national primary election for president.

First off, I think you're totally wrong to discount culture here. It's essential to the discussion of whether representation other than on the basis of population is merited. "Culture" isn't the only aspect, of course, and you can argue whether smaller cultures actually need protection when in a union with larger cultures. But fundamentally, that is why the EU has institutions that operate with representation by country rather than by head--because certain EU countries feel they are substantially different, culturally, from other EU countries, and everyone needs to have a say. Not because their political or legal systems are different.

And I think you dramatically overestimate the differences in legal structures between the states. It is certainly true that states have somewhat different laws and constitutions - but not anywhere close to the differences between European countries, to the point where a lawyer operating in one state can often waive into practice in another state after just a few years of practice in their original home state and no time at all practicing in the other state. That's certainly not how it works in Europe, where laws and even entire legal systems are dramatically different from country to country despite minimalist EU efforts at uniformity and lawyers essentially have to start over if they move countries and want to practice local law. This is not really even up for debate. It is also true that state branches of the Democratic and Republican parties are technically independent, but for nearly all practical purposes they operate as branches of the national parties with little real policy distinction between them except around the edges (and, to the extent that is the case, largely due to certain issues or demographics being more prominent in particular regions or subregions rather than explicitly varying across state lines), again, certainly not the vast degrees of distinction present between political parties in different countries in the EU (even parties within the same EU-wide coalition groupings) or, for that matter, the vast differences in political issues that are topics of the day in different EU countries.

There is just no argument to what you're saying in comparing the US to the EU. Europeans laugh at Americans who talk about the diversity between a Californian, a Texan and a New Yorker, and they're totally right to do so - it is nothing compared to the differences between a Portugese person, a Dutch person and a Latvian person, or their cultural or political norms.

[MillennialModerate]

Disagree with this.

The Senate was formed to give each state an equal seat at the table. Regardless of size.

This nation is a group of UNITED-states, I remind you.

Just because we don’t like the makeup of its currents ideology, doesn’t mean we try to change it.