Resolve: The United States Senate Should Be Abolished.

[Aesir]

This discussion started in the Healthcare 2.0 Thread.

We should abolish the senate. It's completely ridiculous to give a state like Wisconsin the same level of representation as California.

Well, it's pretty much the point of the Senate to give small and large states equal representation, otherwise national politics would be dominated by five states.

And that's completely ridiculous. I understand the rational, but that rational contradicts the nature of a democratic republic. They should replace it with proportional representation.

If you want to get more into this, I'll make a thread?

Jam said it would be a good idea so here I go.

I find the United States Senate to contradict what a Democratic Republic should be, the idea of a second chamber of congress is great and we should maintain our bicameral legislative body. However I believe the structure of the US senate to be a road block to progress.

Historically the role of the senate was to give smaller states some pull in legislation because the fear of bigger states having more voices than the smaller states. After the revolution it's clear the framers were worried about this because we may have been united against the British but in no way were the states friendly with each other. So a compromise was reached, the house is where the bigger states were heard, and the senate giving the chance for smaller states to be heard. Now I think at the time this was a good compromise despite undermining what our system of government was.

However this isn't 1776, I don't think we have to worry about New York devouring Connecticut with a legislative agenda. We're more united as a country than we were in 1776. So the states rights argument is obsolete at this point.

Now I'm sure all of you have looked at the recent health care debate and a majority of us our upset that a public option will not be included. This isn't the house's fault, this is a problem with the senate. A filibuster of minorities in the senate have effectively killed a popular item. Most Americans would like a public option Yet despite what the majority of Americans want a filibuster was formed and now the most progressive part of the bill is now gone. This isn't the first time the senate has been hijacked by minority parties either.

Now as for a solution? Well we could always fix the whole filibuster part of the senate, and completely remove it from the rules of the senate. Personally I think we should just abolish the thing and replace it with Proportional Representation.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I would also like to see the filibuster removed, or at least changed. It's abuse is way out of control now. However, I still think that states like New York and California will devour the rest of the nation with their legislative agenda without the protection of the Senate.

Besides, the Senate itself is designed to be a check on the democratic republic. Senators weren't even directly elected until the 20th century; it outclasses every other branch of government in terms of power (the House controls the purse, the President pardons people, the judiciary decides constitutionality, the Senate gets everything else); it has longer term limits than the House and the presidency specifically to be insulated from popular opinion. All of those things were built into the Senate's design, and I'm not sure why we should get rid of it for doing its job.

And look at it this way: states are entities that are granted specific rights by the Constitution, and the Senate protects that. The House represents the people; the Senate represents a the states. By making California and Rhode Island equal, it ensures that a majority of states must agree with any legislation. Isn't that also part of what a democratic republic means?

 

[Aesir]

I would also like to see the filibuster removed, or at least changed. It's abuse is way out of control now. However, I still think that states like New York and California will devour the rest of the nation with their legislative agenda without the protection of the Senate.

Well we agree on the filibuster at least, however I'm not convinced states like California and New York would devour little states. We're passed the fear of big states devouring little states.

Besides, the Senate itself is designed to be a check on the democratic republic. Senators weren't even directly elected until the 20th century; it outclasses every other branch of government in terms of power (the House controls the purse, the President pardons people, the judiciary decides constitutionality, the Senate gets everything else); it has longer term limits than the House and the presidency specifically to be insulated from popular opinion. All of those things were built into the Senate's design, and I'm not sure why we should get rid of it for doing its job.

I did not do a good job explaining my position properly it seems. The idea of a higher chamber and the powers it has I like. I'm against in the way it was framed. two seats for every state seems bad to me. I would like to see a chamber that is built around proportional representation. Still calling it the senate, giving it the same powers it has, just changing the structure so to speak.

And look at it this way: states are entities that are granted specific rights by the Constitution, and the Senate protects that. The House represents the people; the Senate represents a the states. By making California and Rhode Island equal, it ensures that a majority of states must agree with any legislation. Isn't that also part of what a democratic republic means?

Again I'm not really convinced that a state is going to develop a legislative agenda to destroy the smaller states. And I find it ridiculous that state should have more rights than an individual. The Public Option would have helped millions of Americans get the health care they deserve, because of states rights millions of Americans will not get the necessary health care they deserve. Instead what we're saying is, it's okay for a fringe conservative group who know absolutely nothing about policy to dictate policy, that's really the message we give. I'm not being harsh about that either when you have constituents saying "Keep the governments hands off my medicare" and this is the wing of the republican party that is the most energized what do you think these republican senators are going to listen to?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Well we agree on the filibuster at least, however I'm not convinced states like California and New York would devour little states. We're passed the fear of big states devouring little states.

No we're not. Honestly, the little states are always in danger of being completely dominated for the simple reason that states and people are self-interested. Look at pork-barrel legislation and tell me that isn't blatent self-interest.

As far as the general contention, part of the issue is that our governmental structure is partially created to prevent a run-away majority from running rampant on the rights of the minority. Notice how those smaller states can stop things but they really can't pass them (because of filibustering).

The most basic idea of a government of checks and balances is not to get good things passed, but to prevent bad things from being passed.

 

[Aesir]

Bad things constantly get passed because of it, I don't think I need to list all the bad things that have passed and all the good things that have been watered down because smaller states have such a large pull.

It also still doesn't stop a majority from effecting the rights of a minority, the senate is the biggest obstruction to progress next to the Republican Party.

EDIT:

Look at pork-barrel legislation and tell me that isn't blatent self-interest.

You mean something that little states and big states are guilty of?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Bad things constantly get passed because of it, I don't think I need to list all the bad things that have passed and all the good things that have been watered down because smaller states have such a large pull.

It also still doesn't stop a majority from effecting the rights of a minority, the senate is the biggest obstruction to progress next to the Republican Party.

The point I'm making is the need for compromise lessens bad legislation, and unfortunately also good legistlation.

You mean something that little states and big states are guilty of?

Yes, exactly.


How does this detract from my point that states are self-interested entities?

 

[Aesir]

The point I'm making is the need for compromise lessens bad legislation, and unfortunately also good legistlation.

I would argue the senate passes more bad legislation than it stops.

The point is, those small states have such a big pull that it's completely absurd.

Yes, exactly.


How does this detract from my point that states are self-interested entities?

Looked like you were using that in defense of small states, who probably get more pork barrel spending so their senators vote for certain legislation. Look it those 60 senators who voted on health care, there was obviously pork going on. I'm willing to bet it was all give to small states.

 

[CRASHiC]

The trouble I see with the senate was it was when state hood actually meant something. It was made when State was more valued than Federal, that is no longer the case.

However, you have 2 and that makes a stalemate, 3 can get something done.
The president doesn't want to sign something. That bill is dead without the house. Having 1 house overide the president would make the legislative branch too powerful. When you have 2 legislative branches, it balances things out, requires that 2 houses vote to override the president, which is far less likely as we've seen in the past.

 

[Aesir]

Crashic does have a point too I'm willing to bet if you ask every America what they identify themselves as they would say American and not *insert state name*. America is far more divided on political ideology than they are by statehood.

Over all I just find it moronic to give a state like Vermont the same Representation as California. I think the senate would be better off as proportional representation. Though you would have to increase the size of the senate because 100 seats would never be enough.

 

[KrazyGlue]

The problem with having proportional representation in the senate is that larger states would have a stronger effect on determining law for smaller states than the smaller states themselves.

For example, let's say the senate has proportional representation. Let's say a bill passes due to the support of larger states, even though only 20 states support it. Since federal law also has to be followed by each state, wouldn't, say, California have more influence in determining future Vermont law than Vermont would? It could potentially result in a minority of states passing laws even if the majority of states don't support them. With the current system, there is a requirement that the majority of states is required to pass laws, even if the minority of states don't support them.

This wouldn't be an issue if states didn't exist. But as it is, states are separate political entities that are allowed to have their own laws under the condition that they don't violate national law. Thus, state rights would be violated in a system that allows a minority of the states to determine law for all states.

 

[Aesir]

I like how you called those 20 States a minority when those 20 states probably represent a super majority of the American population. It only takes 9 states to reach 50% of the population.

I also like how we seem to think States rights should trump the idea of One Person, One vote. It's okay to give small states power over large states because it protects states rights. Just as long as you're a small state your rights are protected.

Also large states like California are split among liberal, conservative, and moderate areas. I highly doubt the representation of California would lead to what you're describing. American's identify themselves on party lines, religion, political affiliation, ethnicity before they identify themselves with their state.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I like how you called those 20 States a minority when those 20 states probably represent a super majority of the American population. It only takes 9 states to reach 50% of the population.

I meant the minority in terms of amount of states. (20/50=40%)

I also like how we seem to think States rights should trump the idea of One Person, One vote. It's okay to give small states power over large states because it protects states rights. Just as long as you're a small state your rights are protected.

It's congress voting, not the people. Proportional representation in the senate does not represent the idea of one person one vote (unless of course you intend on putting every american adult in the senate). It's not the same argument as electoral college vs. popular vote.

Now, I'm not saying that population should have no influence. But that's what the house of representatives is for. One body of congress focuses on protecting state rights, while the other allows more populous states to have increased influence due to more people being affected by the law. I'm all for allowing California, New York, Texas, etc. to have increased power in the house, but the senate is the check that makes sure that state rights are being protected as well. That way, you check both for support from the populated areas as well as the support of the majority of states.

Also large states like California are split among liberal, conservative, and moderate areas. I highly doubt the representation of California would lead to what you're describing. American's identify themselves on party lines, religion, political affiliation, ethnicity before they identify themselves with their state.

It doesn't matter how likely or unlikely it is. If state rights could be violated, then it's a faulty system.

 

[Aesir]

I meant the minority in terms of amount of states. (20/50=40%)

So a minority of states that represent a super majority of people is still a minority? That's interesting.

It's congress voting, not the people. Proportional representation in the senate does not represent the idea of one person one vote (unless of course you intend on putting every american adult in the senate). It's not the same argument as electoral college vs. popular vote.

You're completely missing the point, I'm not we give every American a vote in congress that's basically what referendum government is which is a very bad idea.

The Senate is putting states rights before individual rights. I'm well aware of what Representative Democracy is, I don't need the civics lesson.

What the senate does is it protects plots of land and places them over individual rights. It's a practice that has long since served it's purpose.

The idea of one person one vote is the idea that everyone is represented. The senate does not represent people, you can have proportional representation without limiting it to states. Which really is at the root of your argument. If we change the senate to proportional representation and hold national elections for it how could the large states over run the small states? When the large states themselves are split ideologically?

Now, I'm not saying that population should have no influence. But that's what the house of representatives is for. One body of congress focuses on protecting state rights, while the other allows more populous states to have increased influence due to more people being affected by the law. I'm all for allowing California, New York, Texas, etc. to have increased power in the house, but the senate is the check that makes sure that state rights are being protected as well. That way, you check both for support from the populated areas as well as the support of the majority of states.

Basically you're for protecting plots of land over protecting real rights? Am I correct? That's all the senate is for. It's there to protect states who really have no population to begin with. The idea that the senate some how actually protects these rights is debatable as well. How many times has the senate passed laws that violate state rights anyway? If we're really going to argue that the senate is there to protect smaller states from being over run by bigger states which in it's self is very unlikely in this age then we really have to look at how good it is at doing that.

It doesn't matter how likely or unlikely it is. If state rights could be violated, then it's a faulty system.

Like how states rights can be violated now? For instance the 17th amendment?

I'm still finding this funny that we want to give states powers over individuals. That's really what the senate is, it stops the will of the people because a few fringe states are not happy.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I'm still finding this funny that we want to give states powers over individuals. That's really what the senate is, it stops the will of the people because a few fringe states are not happy.

That is the point of the Senate. Everything about the separation of powers and Congress (and especially the Senate) is designed to ****** democratic fervor.

 

[KrazyGlue]

So a minority of states that represent a super majority of people is still a minority? That's interesting.

I said the minority in terms of the amount of states. I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

You're completely missing the point, I'm not we give every American a vote in congress that's basically what referendum government is which is a very bad idea.

I was being sarcastic.

The idea of one person one vote is the idea that everyone is represented. The senate does not represent people, you can have proportional representation without limiting it to states. Which really is at the root of your argument. If we change the senate to proportional representation and hold national elections for it how could the large states over run the small states? When the large states themselves are split ideologically?

Now I'm confused what your position is. National elections for each senator?

Basically you're for protecting plots of land over protecting real rights? Am I correct? That's all the senate is for. It's there to protect states who really have no population to begin with.

What real rights? This is a prime example of propaganda. "Vote for Proportional Representation; we protect real rights!" How about some specific rights. What, exactly, would proportional representation help with?

Also, we have to respect states. Specifically, as I said earlier, the fact that they are separate entities. I mean, this would kind of be like saying "Bangladesh should have more power in the United Nations than the UK; after all they have so many more people who are affected by the resolutions!" Just because a state is less populous doesn't make it less important. With proportional representation, a state like Texas essentially has more power in determining Delaware law than Delaware does. National law affects Delaware just as much as Texas, yet Texas gets more power. It isn't fair to Delaware's government when we say that they matter less than Texas' government.

The idea that the senate some how actually protects these rights is debatable as well. How many times has the senate passed laws that violate state rights anyway? If we're really going to argue that the senate is there to protect smaller states from being over run by bigger states which in it's self is very unlikely in this age then we really have to look at how good it is at doing that.

If something gets passed in the senate through its current system, it's almost a guarantee that most states supported it. I'd call that effective.

Like how states rights can be violated now? For instance the 17th amendment?

Eh, the 17th amendment is different, because it allows people to decide who will be in charge of them. All that proportional representation in the senate would do is put a few more people in charge. Anyway, the 17th amendment is a different issue. Plus, you're making it sound like state rights don't matter.

I'm still finding this funny that we want to give states powers over individuals. That's really what the senate is, it stops the will of the people because a few fringe states are not happy.

First of all, keep in mind that people do in fact live in those fringe states, albeit less of them. Also you make it sound like everyone who doesn't agree with any given bill actually has a say in the matter, which, while ideal, isn't true in the slightest. I just don't see exactly how proportional representation would help. You've been fairly vague on this point, often citing how equal representation "stops the will of the people".

 

[Aesir]

I said the minority in terms of the amount of states. I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

I know what you're saying, I'm saying it's silly to think this is anything but a bad idea.

Now I'm confused what your position is. National elections for each senator?

I'm confused now, do you know what Proportional Representation is? It wouldn't be for each senator, we would vote based on party. If 51% of the american people vote Republican 31% Democrats and the remaining 18% filled by minority parties than the seats would reflect that.

What real rights? This is a prime example of propaganda. "Vote for Proportional Representation; we protect real rights!" How about some specific rights. What, exactly, would proportional representation help with?

Yeah it totally is propaganda.

Maybe the right to representation? I dunno about you but i know quite a few people who don't get properly represented in the senate. You know like Republicans in liberal states and vice verse. Maybe any right that has taken so long for a group to obtain? Civil rights, woman's rights, all of these things took far to long than they should have. Can't also forget the times the senate passes some really bad legislation that infringes on rights, like the Defense of Marriage act. At least with proportional representation, virtually every one will have a voice, unlike now.

Also, we have to respect states. Specifically, as I said earlier, the fact that they are separate entities. I mean, this would kind of be like saying "Bangladesh should have more power in the United Nations than the UK; after all they have so many more people who are affected by the resolutions!" Just because a state is less populous doesn't make it less important. With proportional representation, a state like Texas essentially has more power in determining Delaware law than Delaware does. National law affects Delaware just as much as Texas, yet Texas gets more power. It isn't fair to Delaware's government when we say that they matter less than Texas' government.

Again this assumes we elect based off the state level, which is not my argument. If we established what I'm proposing is we hold those elections on a national scale.

If something gets passed in the senate through its current system, it's almost a guarantee that most states supported it. I'd call that effective.

Like the Public Option right?

Eh, the 17th amendment is different, because it allows people to decide who will be in charge of them. All that proportional representation in the senate would do is put a few more people in charge. Anyway, the 17th amendment is a different issue. Plus, you're making it sound like state rights don't matter.

I'm not saying they don't matter, but individual rights come before states rights.

First of all, keep in mind that people do in fact live in those fringe states, albeit less of them. Also you make it sound like everyone who doesn't agree with any given bill actually has a say in the matter, which, while ideal, isn't true in the slightest. I just don't see exactly how proportional representation would help. You've been fairly vague on this point, often citing how equal representation "stops the will of the people".

You also make it sound like the decisions by senators reflects on the people of those states they represent. I don't think you actually believe that, but to say the current system is favorable is a bit of a stretch.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I'm confused now, do you know what Proportional Representation is? It wouldn't be for each senator, we would vote based on party. If 51% of the american people vote Republican 31% Democrats and the remaining 18% filled by minority parties than the seats would reflect that.

Yeah, I know how the idea of proportional representation works. For some reason I thought you were saying something different and that's why I got confused.

Yeah it totally is propaganda.

Maybe the right to representation? I dunno about you but i know quite a few people who don't get properly represented in the senate. You know like Republicans in liberal states and vice verse. Maybe any right that has taken so long for a group to obtain? Civil rights, woman's rights, all of these things took far to long than they should have. Can't also forget the times the senate passes some really bad legislation that infringes on rights, like the Defense of Marriage act. At least with proportional representation, virtually every one will have a voice, unlike now.

There's going to be bad legislation passed under any system. I do understand the need to have representation. I'm not against using proportional representation in the house of representatives. The only thing I won't support is a system that has proportional representation in both houses. Hate to sound like a broken record, but state rights are still important. Obviously nobody is going to secede from the union, but less populous states wouldn't be happy if they had less power in both houses.

Again this assumes we elect based off the state level, which is not my argument. If we established what I'm proposing is we hold those elections on a national scale.

Right, but certain states would have less representatives than others, correct?

Like the Public Option right?

Well, you just took my quote out of context. It was in response to you saying that we have to look at how good a job the senate is doing at protecting state rights. So when I called it "effective", the context was that it was effective at protecting state rights.

I'm not saying they don't matter, but individual rights come before states rights.

I would tend to agree in most cases, but I just don't feel proportional representation in the senate would benefit individual rights all that much.

You also make it sound like the decisions by senators reflects on the people of those states they represent. I don't think you actually believe that, but to say the current system is favorable is a bit of a stretch.

Yeah, there's plenty of flaws with the current system, but I think that by changing it, there would be a loss of state rights and little to no gain in individual rights. But, of course, by no means is the current system perfect.