Some ideas to fix the senate un-balance

[Thebobo]

We all know that Wyoming has a pittance of a population yet has the same senate power as california and that's not right imo. So how to fix without increasing the number of states?

Split California not into three different states just three "Senate" zones, Just like congress you have an area in your state you are responsible for? Any suggestions or other ideas?

 

[Greenman]

I didn't know the senate was broken.

 

[Jon-T]

Or how about we institute some sort of bicameral legislature where in one section California would totally swamp Wyoming while in the other they are equal and have no legislation pass without the approval of both. Gee wonder why no one ever thought of that before.

 

[Jon-T]

I didn't know the senate was broken.

He wants to effectively eliminate the one wing of congress and eliminate the checks and balance system.

in other words.

Wahh wahh wahh I don't like the last election! We have to scrap the constitution and start over with rules where I get to win!

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Senate is supposed to work as described, the Senate is supposed to be equal representation
The House & Electoral College are not supposed to work this way.

 

[fskimospy]

Or how about we institute some sort of bicameral legislature where in one section California would totally swamp Wyoming while in the other they are equal and have no legislation pass without the approval of both. Gee wonder why no one ever thought of that before.

Do you think if the current disparities in population existed in 1789 that the Constitution would have been adopted as drafted in regards to the Senate? I sure don't.

If that's the case, do you have a particular reason why we shouldn't change our methods of governance to account for changes in our society?

 

[dank69]

Senate is supposed to work as described, the Senate is supposed to be equal representation
The House & Electoral College are not supposed to work this way.

Even that is debatable. When the Constitution was written the population difference between the largest and smallest states was a fraction of what it is now. We should at least be able to have a discussion about how to massage the system while retaining the initial spirit. Of course, many people from low population states are going to fight the loss of their unfair advantage by maintaining the belief that the founding fathers wanted 1 person from Wyoming to be equal to almost 70 Californians.

 

[Thebobo]

yes because Wahh wahh wahh

 

[soulcougher73]

Do you think if the current disparities in population existed in 1789 that the Constitution would have been adopted as drafted in regards to the Senate? I sure don't.

If that's the case, do you have a particular reason why we shouldn't change our methods of governance to account for changes in our society?

Look at this idiot thinking the founders put a way to amend the constitution in place. Pfft. They knew everything, more than we will ever know....

/s

 

[fskimospy]

I didn't know the senate was broken.

As things currently stand 41 senators representing approximately 11% of the US population can stop all legislation from being passed. In addition, six senators represent approximately as many Americans as 62 others. The House just introduced a bill that will very likely pass to restore net neutrality, something supported by more than 80% of Americans, and it will die in the Senate. While the Senate was always intended to be anti-majoritarian this imbalance is now so extreme I would love to hear an argument for why that's not broken.

If current trends continue then in about 20 years almost 70% of the US population will be represented by 30% of the Senate. That would mean that 30% of the country would have not just a majority in the senate necessary to block all legislation but a supermajority that would be sufficient to remove presidents from office and would pass the threshold to amend the Constitution. Does that sound like a well functioning institution to you?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Even that is debatable. When the Constitution was written the population difference between the largest and smallest states was a fraction of what it is now.

The total population might have been a fraction of what it was now, but so was the total world population. The percentages of population by state was still somewhat similar. The founding fathers knew that some states had a significantly smaller say in the Senate than the House. At the time of the framing of the Constitution almost 20% of eligible voters (as originally framed by the Constitution) in the States were living in Virginia while only about 1.5% were in Delaware (you know the first state to ratify the constitution).

At the time of the ratification of the Constitution:

Each Senator from Virginia represented 55,468 people.
Each Senator from Pennsylvania represented 55,394 people.
Each Senator from Massachusetts represented 47,726 people.

Each Senator from Kentucky represented 7,577 people.
Each Senator from Georgia represented 6,551 people.
Each Senator from Delaware represented 5,891 people.

 

[fskimospy]

The total population might have been a fraction of what it was now, but so was the total world population. The percentages of population by state was still somewhat similar. The founding fathers knew that some states had a significantly smaller say in the Senate than the House. At the time of the framing of the Constitution almost 20% of eligible voters (as originally framed by the Constitution) in the States were living in Virginia while only about 1.5% were in Delaware (you know the first state to ratify the constitution).

At the time of the ratification of the Constitution:

Each Senator from Virginia represented 55,468 people.
Each Senator from Pennsylvania represented 55,394 people.
Each Senator from Massachusetts represented 47,726 people.

Each Senator from Kentucky represented 7,577 people.
Each Senator from Georgia represented 6,551 people.
Each Senator from Delaware represented 5,891 people.

The percentages by state are drastically different now. According to your figures a citizen of Delaware had about 10 times the representation in the Senate as someone from Virginia. Today the population of Wyoming is ~580,000 people and the population of California is about 39,000,000. That means a citizen of Wyoming has ~70 times the representation in the Senate as compared to a citizen of California.

The gap is roughly 700% larger now than it was in 1789. How is that similar?

 

[zinfamous]

I didn't know the senate was broken.

When the majority leader effectively relinquishes his constitutionally-mandated duty, and he gives no fucks about it, then yes: the senate is fundamentally broken. Fuckstain has been at it for a while now.

 

[Indus]

Problem with democracy isn't democracy, its the lack of democracy.

Look at where there is voter suppression.. create new states there.

I'm looking at you Ashville, NC, Atlanta, GA, and others.

 

[vi edit]

It's just going to continue to get worse as populations continue to build up in heavy urban areas and young voters leave red states to places with actual jobs. I don't know the answer short of constitutional amendment (HA! good luck) or a ton of liberal minded billionaires getting together and basically subsidizing a mass exodus from NYC and Cali to take over WY and North Dakota.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The percentages by state are drastically different now. According to your figures a citizen of Delaware had about 10 times the representation in the Senate as someone from Virginia. Today the population of Wyoming is ~580,000 people and the population of California is about 39,000,000. That means a citizen of Wyoming has ~70 times the representation in the Senate as compared to a citizen of California.

The gap is roughly 700% larger now than it was in 1789. How is that similar?

Yes, the numbers have grown, but the concept is still fundamentally the same. We are 50 independent states that have different needs, and in the House we get roughly equal representation based on population, but in the Senate we get represented by the state we choose to live in.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, the numbers have grown, but the concept is still fundamentally the same. We are 50 independent states that have different needs, and in the House we get roughly equal representation based on population, but in the Senate we get represented by the state we choose to live in.

I disagree. First, when the states signed on to the Constitution they were indeed independent. Now, they are not. (After all, look what happened in 1865 when states tried to assert their independence) Second, the states we added on later, especially those in the Midwest, were not done so based on some specific need to separate them based on local needs. They are all basically boxes for a reason, and that’s that Congress was drawing arbitrary lines. Also, anyone who wants to explain to me why we need both a North and a South Dakota is welcome to.

Finally, as I mentioned before the country is simply a drastically different place than it was 230 years ago. Would Virginia have signed on if Delaware didn’t get 10x the representation but instead got 70x? Seems dubious. If we designed a system from scratch today would we give Wyoming 70x the representation of California? I sincerely doubt it. Would we make it so 11% of the population can stop all legislation? Hell no.

That’s the system we have currently though. There’s a good op-Ed in the Washington Post today about just this issue. If our government were working well and this were the case I can see the argument for not changing things. Instead though our government is almost entirely dysfunctional, frequently shutting itself down, unable to pass even overwhelmingly popular legislation. Considering its poor performance maybe it’s a time to change how things are done?

 

[Maxima1]

Split California not into three different states just three "Senate" zones, Just like congress you have an area in your state you are responsible for? Any suggestions or other ideas?

That's strange to me, and would require a rethinking anyway of what is said in the Constitution.

Article V: [describing the amendment process] "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

i think the best solution is just packing the court with people who are willing to say it violates other parts of the Constitution in some way. We already have completely novel interpretations where Republicans make a complete mockery out of some of the Amendments. And this really doesn't do that in the sense we're just addressing an obvious whacked balance.

We could keep the two Senators per state but add another tier based on population for some states. i don't believe it would need to be that big.

Here's an idea from Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball:

1. Expand the Senate to 136 members to be more representative: Grant the 10 most populous states 2 additional Senators, the 15 next most populous states 1 additional Senator, and the District of Columbia 1 Senator.

 

[Jaskalas]

Do you think if the current disparities in population existed in 1789 that the Constitution would have been adopted as drafted in regards to the Senate? I sure don't.

In 1789 they were recognized as member States, to the Union. States, not people, are the measure of equal representation in the Senate.

Population disparity already existed then, which is why they came up with the compromise in the first place.

Connecticut Compromise

 

[hal2kilo]

I didn't know the senate was broken.

Must be living in a reality bubble not to see how Mitch has been destroying this country. I say abolish the anti-democratic institution. We don't need a House of Lords i.e. rich class, to determine our fates anymore.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I disagree. First, when the states signed on to the Constitution they were indeed independent. Now, they are not. (After all, look what happened in 1865 when states tried to assert their independence)

I agree with this, the Civil War effectively ended the concept of independent states.

If our government were working well and this were the case I can see the argument for not changing things. Instead though our government is almost entirely dysfunctional, frequently shutting itself down, unable to pass even overwhelmingly popular legislation. Considering its poor performance maybe it’s a time to change how things are done?

I don't buy the argument that the founding fathers would not have created the system we have if the numbers had been different. Simply put they had no problem disenfranchising large groups of people. They were not so much interested in equal say as balance of power. Their writing makes it clear that many of them kind of wanted a broken system that could get nothing done.

The argument I do agree with, and convinces me that you are right we need some changes, is just how dysfunctional our system has become. I don't know that adding seats to the Senate is the correct change to fix it though. I think our problem lies more in how party politics works rather than how many people are represented. I think that changing our voting system to a ranked choice system or moving to more of a parliamentary system would do more good then simply adding seats to the Senate.

 

[fskimospy]

In 1789 they were recognized as member States, to the Union. States, not people, are the measure of equal representation in the Senate.

Population disparity already existed then, which is why they came up with the compromise in the first place.

Connecticut Compromise

Right, and the population disparity is almost an order of magnitude greater today than it was then.

Do you think if the disparity between Virginia and Delaware were the same as the difference between Wyoming and California today that the compromise would have been the same? I sincerely doubt it.

This is my whole point. The country has changed in the last two and a half centuries. Not surprisingly some of the political agreements that made sense in the 1700s don’t make sense today. Let’s fix them.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Feature, not a bug

 

[fskimospy]

I agree with this, the Civil War effectively ended the concept of independent states.

I don't buy the argument that the founding fathers would not have created the system we have if the numbers had been different. simply put they had no problem disenfranchising large groups of people. They were not so much interested in equal say as balance of power. Their writing makes it clear that many of them kind of wanted a broken system that could get nothing done.

They made the Constitution explicitly to remedy a broken system that could get nothing done though?

As for what the founders as a whole might have wanted that’s one thing but the Constitution was going nowhere without Virginia signing on and I suspect Virginia very much would have cared if they had 1/7th the representation in the senate compared to the compromise they agreed to.

Imagine it the other way, would Delaware have agreed to things had Virginia gotten 14 senators instead of two? Of course not. That’s the equivalent shift in representative power that’s happened.

The argument I do agree with, and convinces me that you are right we need some changes, is just how dysfunctional our system has become. I don't know that adding seats to the Senate is the correct change to fix it though. I think our problem lies more in how party politics works rather than how many people are represented. I think that changing our voting system to a ranked choice system or moving to more of a parliamentary system would do more good then simply adding seats to the Senate.

Well I’m a big supporter of both of those ideas so that sounds good to me! A parliamentary system would effectively eliminate the Senate entirely though or turn it into some figurehead House of Lords nonsense.

You are also right that changing party politics would solve the problem too but I’m not sure how we do that. I think the reason the Senate worked in the past was that parties weren’t as strong and there was significant ideological overlap (DW-NOMINATE indicates this). That’s not true anymore so the deals that kept the Senate working have gone away.

 

[soulcougher73]

I disagree. First, when the states signed on to the Constitution they were indeed independent. Now, they are not. (After all, look what happened in 1865 when states tried to assert their independence) Second, the states we added on later, especially those in the Midwest, were not done so based on some specific need to separate them based on local needs. They are all basically boxes for a reason, and that’s that Congress was drawing arbitrary lines. Also, anyone who wants to explain to me why we need both a North and a South Dakota is welcome to.

Finally, as I mentioned before the country is simply a drastically different place than it was 230 years ago. Would Virginia have signed on if Delaware didn’t get 10x the representation but instead got 70x? Seems dubious. If we designed a system from scratch today would we give Wyoming 70x the representation of California? I sincerely doubt it. Would we make it so 11% of the population can stop all legislation? Hell no.

That’s the system we have currently though. There’s a good op-Ed in the Washington Post today about just this issue. If our government were working well and this were the case I can see the argument for not changing things. Instead though our government is almost entirely dysfunctional, frequently shutting itself down, unable to pass even overwhelmingly popular legislation. Considering its poor performance maybe it’s a time to change how things are done?

This is basically the best way to look at this question. Would we do it the same way today as we did then with these kinds of number. The answer would be a unanimous NO. So that means there is obviously a problem that needs to be corrected somehow. If only the damn founders had given us a way!!

 

[soulcougher73]

Feature, not a bug

Stupid, not a surprise