Abolish the Senate?

[LiveUninhibited]

For better or worse, I have a propensity to question everything. Little about the basic structure of our government has changed since the Framers of the American Constitution pioneered a government that was the first of its kind, i.e. a large, constitutional, representative republic.

While the Framers had palpable fear of the masses, even when suffrage was limited to White, male landowners, they also knew that anything like a monarchy would be rejected by the well-armed populace. There was also the issue that they had to compromise with small states and slave states in order to have them on board at all. All of this led to a Constitution that wasn't exactly a shining beacon of democracy and freedom, but many of its dysfunctions were later fixed by amendments.

Aside from the electoral college, one thing I find odd that remains is the Senate. Why do we need two houses, particularly one as undemocratic as the Senate? Here's an illustration of what I mean by Robert Dahl in How Democratic is the American Constitution, pages 48-49:

Imagine a situation in which your vote for your representative is counted as one while the vote of a friend in a neighboring town is counted as seventeen. Suppose that for some reason you and your friend each change your job and your residence... you now discover that simply by moving, you have acquired sixteen more votes. Your friend, however, has lost sixteen votes. Pretty ridiculous, is it not?

Yet that is about what would happen if you lived on the western shore of Lake Tahoe in California and moved less than fifty miles east to Carson City, Nevada... As we all know, both states are equally represented in the U.S. Senate. With a population in 2000 of nearly 34 million, California had two senators. But so did Nevada, with only 2 million residents... A Californian who moved to Alaska might lose some points on climate, but she would stand to gain a vote worth about fifty-four times as much as her vote in California [when voting for senators].

Such unequal counting of votes for representation seems pretty hypocritical for a nation that so idealizes and maybe even crusades for democracy. The Senate could be phased out by making the next election for only 4 years, and the last election for only 2 years, so that the last 100 Senators' terms end at the same time.

One reason the Senate remains is obvious. Small states would not ratify an amendment that reduces their power (need 3/4 for ratification), nor would 2/3 of the Senate vote to get rid of itself.

A closer look at the Constitution reveals that the number of States needed to ratify it might actually be 100%, given Article V states that no state can be denied equal suffrage in the senate without its consent. My guess is this means abolishing the Senate would take at least two distinct amendments. One to strike that part of Article V, and another to actually dissolve the Senate.

So should we try to get rid of the Senate? Why or why not?

 

[michiganFats]

I voted no, but upon further reflection, I should have voted other. The Senate as it exists now is pointless. Originally the Senate was the house of the states. It gave state governments a say in what happened in Washington, and I think that was a damn good idea. Now it is nothing more than a glorified house of representatives. As things stand now, I would be in favor of abolishing the Senate, however my preference is to restore the Senate to it's original form, a body of professional politicians representing their respective states who do not face popular election.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, abolishing the Senate would not be a good idea. The 17th amendment to the Constitution should be repealed instead, so that the Senate can go back to it's original function of serving their states interests.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Why are the state's interests important? Why not just the people?

 

[michiganFats]

The people do have a say. It's called the House of Representatives. The states have a say because they are members of the Union.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why are the state's interests important? Why not just the people?

What michiganFats said is correct, but just to add to it, the federal government was created as an agent for the states and the Senate was supposed to be their mouthpiece. Legislation would have to be in both the interests of the people (House of Representatives) and the states (the Senate), before it went to the President.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

The people do have a say. It's called the House of Representatives. The states have a say because they are members of the Union.

Yes that's a statement of how it currently works, but not really why. A state is just a division of the government. If democracy is valued, the will of the people is the source of all government power. Sure it was established as a federal system due to mistrust of centralized power, but centralized power is checked by the limitations spelled out in the Constitution. Not that people always follow it anyway.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The people do have a say. It's called the House of Representatives. The states have a say because they are members of the Union.

Yes that's a statement of how it currently works, but not really why. A state is just a division of the government. If democracy is valued, the will of the people is the source of all government power. Sure it was established as a federal system due to mistrust of centralized power, but centralized power is checked by the limitations of the Constitution.

Centralized power is not checked by the Constitution in anything but theory. The federal government does what it wants when it wants. But that's a different discussion. The states were meant to have a say in the federal government because it was the states that created the federal government to act on their behalf. That is how our system of federalism is supposed to work.

 

[michiganFats]

The people do have a say. It's called the House of Representatives. The states have a say because they are members of the Union.

Yes that's a statement of how it currently works, but not really why. A state is just a division of the government. If democracy is valued, the will of the people is the source of all government power. Sure it was established as a federal system due to mistrust of centralized power, but centralized power is checked by the limitations spelled out in the Constitution. Not that people always follow it anyway.

A state is not a division of the federal government. If that belief is commonly held, that would help explain why we have the problems we have right now. Democracy? We have a Constitutional Republic(at least we are supposed to have one). "Sure it was established as a federal system due to mistrust of centralized power"....WTF?. As for centralized power being checked by the Constitution, that remains to be seen.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

I'm not sure why we care why it was made that way at the time. At the time it was made they had no template to figure out how to make such a government but they did well for what they knew. That doesn't mean it can't be improved upon.

Now suppose that Southern Oregon and Northern California became Jefferson State, as some have proposed over the years. Almost happened just prior to Pearl Harbor.
State of Jefferson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suddenly the votes of the rest of the nation are devalued, and votes in Northern California are actually worth more like those of Alaska. Or suppose America takes on another state via one of its territories or however. Is the interests of States, real or prospective, really equal to the interests of the people? Who is being protected by small states having more power per person?

 

[LiveUninhibited]

The people do have a say. It's called the House of Representatives. The states have a say because they are members of the Union.

Yes that's a statement of how it currently works, but not really why. A state is just a division of the government. If democracy is valued, the will of the people is the source of all government power. Sure it was established as a federal system due to mistrust of centralized power, but centralized power is checked by the limitations spelled out in the Constitution. Not that people always follow it anyway.

A state is not a division of the federal government. If that belief is commonly held, that would help explain why we have the problems we have right now.

I didn't say federal government, but I probably should have just said "division of government" to be more clear. Explain the mechanism of a loss of federalism leading to the problems we have now, please.

I do admit there really is no federalism now. Almost any federal act can be justified by the commerce clause and federal acts trump state laws. States have no real rights.

Democracy? We have a Constitutional Republic(at least we are supposed to have one). "Sure it was established as a federal system due to mistrust of centralized power"....WTF?. As for centralized power being checked by the Constitution, that remains to be seen.

People constantly point to democracy as being the only legitimate source of government power. Direct democracy isn't feasible on a wide scale. Republican (not the party) governments are generally of two types: aristocratic or democratic. Republics with universal suffrage are democratic.

 

[michiganFats]

Don't play the semantic game with me. You used the word "division". Anyone with a high-school diploma knows what that means. So put up or shut up, but I'm not going to allow you to get away with making up definitions as you go. If that's your preference, go talk to OldRocks.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Looking at the poll I am really amazed all others so far think the Senate is needed. The Senate seems a more effective mechanism for ensuring that special interests of the few (states with below average populations) are catered to by the Federal government. Only a constitution that limits the federal governments powers (and is actually followed) will ensure State's rights.

Here's an illustration. Imagine a competent world governing body (not the UN). How would you ensure that this world body does not trample on the rights of member nations? Not by making two houses, one where the Vatican has the same representation as China, and one based upon population. No, you'd do it by making a Constitution that spells out what the international body can do and cannot do, e.g.: Can prevent genocide and arbitrate peace between members. Can't tell nations how to conduct their social domestic policy in general.

Don't play the semantic game with me. You used the word "division". Anyone with a high-school diploma knows what that means. So put up or shut up, but I'm not going to allow you to get away with making up definitions as you go. If that's your preference, go talk to OldRocks.

I'm not playing games I miscommunicated. I'm sorry my word choice was poor and I'm sorry that offends you.

 

[michiganFats]

Don't play the semantic game with me. You used the word "division". Anyone with a high-school diploma knows what that means. So put up or shut up, but I'm not going to allow you to get away with making up definitions as you go. If that's your preference, go talk to OldRocks.

I'm not playing games I miscommunicated. Sorry that offends you.

It does offend me. And I don't believe for a second that you miscommunicated. I can't help but notice that you still haven't put up. Put up or shut up.

 

[xotoxi]

Senators represent the state, therefore there are 2 for each state, regardless of the population.

Representatives represent the voters. That is why the number of representatives is relatively proportional to the population of the state.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Don't play the semantic game with me. You used the word "division". Anyone with a high-school diploma knows what that means. So put up or shut up, but I'm not going to allow you to get away with making up definitions as you go. If that's your preference, go talk to OldRocks.

I'm not playing games I miscommunicated. Sorry that offends you.

It does offend me. And I don't believe for a second that you miscommunicated. I can't help but notice that you still haven't put up. Put up or shut up.

Well I can't control what you believe. I honestly have no idea what put up means. I also don't understand why you're being hostile towards me. You disagree with my idea. That's okay. I would have liked a more detailed explantion on why, but that's okay too.

Note I edited that post before reading yours but after you wrote this. You looked offline so I had no idea you were still on.

 

[michiganFats]

The more I see of you, the more I think you're a plant. You have no idea? You took exception and then changed the topic when you were challenged. My people have a word for your kind, it's "pussy".

 

[LiveUninhibited]

The more I see of you, the more I think you're a plant.

A plant? Like somebody who hasn't been around the country/world? Yeah I should probably travel more.

You have no idea? You took exception and then changed the topic when you were challenged. My people have a word for your kind, it's "pussy".

Regardless of what you believe my intention was, I was not trying to say the State is a part of the Federal government. In a simplified way, divisions of government include: local, state, and federal levels. But my use of division here is and was inappropriately simplistic.

My position is not that power should be more centralized. I'd favor that the federal governments powers be drastically reduced in most areas and yielded to the states. I just don't agree, from my limited knowledge, that the Senate accomplishes that. The Senate only seems like a quasi-democratic and redundant governing body to me. I don't know why that position is so offensive.

 

[michiganFats]

You can go all Editec all you want. You still didn't address the original objections to your posts in this thread. So fuck you.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

You can go all Editec all you want. You still didn't address the original objections to your posts in this thread. So fuck you.

My understanding of the original objections were that the Senate exists to preserve State's rights at the federal level. If that is incorrect, tell me what you want me to try to address. If that is correct, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In either case I'm going to sleep for now. Thanks for your input in any case.