Some ideas to fix the senate un-balance

[Zorba]

In the Senate no state gets a disproportionate amount of influence as they are all equal. A small state has no more power to pass laws that hurt a large states than a large state has power to hurt a small state.

Except there are more small states than large states, so as a block they have significantly more power.

 

[soulcougher73]

You need to study US Government. There are two legislative branches. This is because every state has a right to be represented and larger populations also have a right for representation. The Senate gives each state 2 Senators so each state has a say in what goes on. Then the House uses a formula based on the US Census to set up districts based on population. Each branch of the legislature has to agree for Bills to be passed. This way the little guy is represented and the population is represented. The majority does not have a right to push the minority states around.

Perhaps we need a new formula for population to reduce the number of representatives.

But isn’t the inverse even worse? Minority states/populations pushing others around? The problem when you start going with minority rules is where do you stop it? 1 guy? 100? There is a reason majority rule is the default for democracy.

 

[ivwshane]

Except there are more small states than large states, so as a block they have significantly more power.

Not really. Legislation has to get through the house and the more populous states have the power in the house.

 

[ElFenix]

Not really. Legislation has to get through the house and the more populous states have the power in the house.

doesn't matter when the senators of 21 small states representing vast swathes of no one can veto that.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Except there are more small states than large states, so as a block they have significantly more power.

The small states are not an aligned block, which is why the Senate regularly changes hands.

 

[Starbuck1975]

But isn’t the inverse even worse? Minority states/populations pushing others around? The problem when you start going with minority rules is where do you stop it? 1 guy? 100? There is a reason majority rule is the default for democracy.

One group has yet to gain a sustained monopoly. Each branch of government has and continues to change hands. No one is pushing anyone around.

 

[dank69]

I don't recall a threshold for population disparity. I missed the part where the founding fathers agreed that "When the time comes that the population disparity between the most populous and least populous states is 7 times greater than currently exists, the Senate must be disbanded.".

I suspect you'd be changing your tune if we somehow acquired Canada and because they are way more liberal than us we decided to divide it into 50 more states each with 2 senators.

The problem isn't that each state gets 2 senators. The problem is "what constitutes a state?" Arbitrary lines on a map are not magical.

 

[dank69]

One group has yet to gain a sustained monopoly. Each branch of government has and continues to change hands. No one is pushing anyone around.

A minority of the population has effecively stalled all liberal legislation since the ACA. The same minority has also been able to pass legislation of it's own during that time period.

 

[Starbuck1975]

A minority of the population has effecively stalled all liberal legislation since the ACA. The same minority has also been able to pass legislation of it's own during that time period.

And? I believe that is the role of opposition parties, and I believe we have a process to remove them from office.

 

[fskimospy]

I suspect you'd be changing your tune if we somehow acquired Canada and because they are way more liberal than us we decided to divide it into 50 more states each with 2 senators.

The problem isn't that each state gets 2 senators. The problem is "what constitutes a state?" Arbitrary lines on a map are not magical.

Yeah, I’m not sure what people aren’t understanding about this. States were created with essentially arbitrary borders based in large part on Senate power considerations. There’s nothing special about states.

I’ve got an idea - let’s make each borough of NYC its own state. They all have much larger populations and GDP than Wyoming, after all. (Okay, Staten Island is about equal in population but they barely count as part of NYC anyway)

 

[fskimospy]

And? I believe that is the role of opposition parties, and I believe we have a process to remove them from office.

He’s not talking about opposition parties, he’s talking about minority rule, something which is far more dangerous to a country than majority rule.

Had the Democrats won the popular vote in 2018 by say, only three points instead of eight the Republicans would have kept the House it would have been reasonably likely that the Republican Party would have enjoyed complete, possibly filibuster proof power over the entire federal government despite losing the popular vote for the presidency, the house, and the senate.

If that’s not a big flashing warning sign as to how our system has problems, what would be?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yeah, I’m not sure what people aren’t understanding about this. States were created with essentially arbitrary borders based in large part on Senate power considerations. There’s nothing special about states.

I’ve got an idea - let’s make each borough of NYC its own state. They all have much larger populations and GDP than Wyoming, after all. (Okay, Staten Island is about equal in population but they barely count as part of NYC anyway)

That’s a really bad idea. The National guard of the Bronx and Queens would be at war the first year while all the hipsters in Brooklyn pull a Switzerland, Manhattan finances both sides and Staten Island becomes the next Alabama.

 

[dank69]

And? I believe that is the role of opposition parties, and I believe we have a process to remove them from office.

And liberals need more people to accomplish the same thing. In other words, the whole system benefits conservatives. You say the Senate is designed to prevent the majority from running roughshod over the minority, and I agree, but the balance is so out of whack that the minority is running roughshod over the majority. You cannot believe that is not a problem.

 

[fskimospy]

That’s a really bad idea. The National guard of the Bronx and Queens would be at war the first year while all the hipsters in Brooklyn pull a Switzerland, Manhattan finances both sides and Staten Island becomes the next Alabama.

Staten Island would probably fare pretty well in the coming war considering its population is like 75% cops and firefighters.

 

[Zorba]

Not really. Legislation has to get through the house and the more populous states have the power in the house.

Except either house of Congress can stop legislation. So while small states can't force laws on to big ones, they can block a lot of action. They can also approve all the judges, etc that directly impact big states.

 

[FerrelGeek]

But isn’t the inverse even worse? Minority states/populations pushing others around? The problem when you start going with minority rules is where do you stop it? 1 guy? 100? There is a reason majority rule is the default for democracy.

We aren't a democracy, we're a republic. SMH. What do they teach kids in school these days.?

 

[soulcougher73]

We aren't a democracy, we're a republic. SMH. What do they teach kids in school these days.?

I wasnt talking about what we are. Im talking about true democracy. Its almost as if you havent paid attention to the flow of this thread.

 

[soulcougher73]

doesn't matter when the senators of 21 small states representing vast swathes of no one can veto that.

And i think they have figured this out as well. They figured out how to game the system that is to their favor. Thus system is broken and not a very good design.

 

[soulcougher73]

Yeah, I’m not sure what people aren’t understanding about this. States were created with essentially arbitrary borders based in large part on Senate power considerations. There’s nothing special about states.

I’ve got an idea - let’s make each borough of NYC its own state. They all have much larger populations and GDP than Wyoming, after all. (Okay, Staten Island is about equal in population but they barely count as part of NYC anyway)

Dont forget the States of Chicagoland, San Franland, Los Anglesland, San Diegoland, etc. Lets just go crazy with the stupid state thing while were at it

 

[fskimospy]

We aren't a democracy, we're a republic. SMH. What do they teach kids in school these days.?

We are most certainly a democracy. We are also a republic.

This has to be close to the top on the list of wrong things that stupid and ignorant people say because they think it makes them sound smart.

Please educate yourself here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-a-democracy-because-democracy-is-like-cash/

A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

 

[dank69]

We aren't a democracy, we're a republic. SMH. What do they teach kids in school these days.?

Stupid fucking statement by a knuckle dragging retard. We are a democratic republic and I'd be surprised if anyone that participates in this forum doesn't already know that. It is a specific form of democracy but it is still a democracy. On top of your post being patently false, it isn't even germane to the discussion.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Pretty irrelevant what the founders had in mind when they set up the system. At that point the federal government did... basically nothing? There was no federal income tax, no social security, no federal highways, no FAA, no environmental laws (or knowledge off. Could the founders even consider that senators from a tiny state could block laws against their toxic waste running into a huge one? Is it fair that they have equal say?). The people have decided that the federal government shall do many many things, but that doesn't really work with "independent states". Americans are trying to have it both ways, with states doing whatever they want, but people (both parties) want the federal government to do lots of things.

edit: also there is absolutely zero chance this will change, as it would only mean one party gains more power while the other loses it. There is no way to compromise this where both get someting (at least not that I see. If it is I'd love to hear it)

 

[Genx87]

Pretty irrelevant what the founders had in mind when they set up the system. At that point the federal government did... basically nothing? There was no federal income tax, no social security, no federal highways, no FAA, no environmental laws (or knowledge off. Could the founders even consider that senators from a tiny state could block laws against their toxic waste running into a huge one? Is it fair that they have equal say?). The people have decided that the federal government shall do many many things, but that doesn't really work with "independent states". Americans are trying to have it both ways, with states doing whatever they want, but people (both parties) want the federal government to do lots of things.

edit: also there is absolutely zero chance this will change, as it would only mean one party gains more power while the other loses it. There is no way to compromise this where both get someting (at least not that I see. If it is I'd love to hear it)

Yes the founding fathers did think of what you think makes their opinions irrelevant. It is why they put in a mechanism to change the constitution. And IMO why they created the senate was to allow smaller states from being run over. The house is the mob rule side of our two house legislative branch. The Senate is there to slow down the mob and allow for more thought in the process. If we turn the senate into the house or eliminate it. We will have the big dumb mob running the country. And quite frankly, that terrifies the shit out of me.

 

[mect]

Yes the founding fathers did think of what you think makes their opinions irrelevant. It is why they put in a mechanism to change the constitution. And IMO why they created the senate was to allow smaller states from being run over. The house is the mob rule side of our two house legislative branch. The Senate is there to slow down the mob and allow for more thought in the process. If we turn the senate into the house or eliminate it. We will have the big dumb mob running the country. And quite frankly, that terrifies the shit out of me.

You really seam convinced rural America is more intelligent than urban America. I find this baffling.

 

[soulcougher73]

Yes the founding fathers did think of what you think makes their opinions irrelevant. It is why they put in a mechanism to change the constitution. And IMO why they created the senate was to allow smaller states from being run over. The house is the mob rule side of our two house legislative branch. The Senate is there to slow down the mob and allow for more thought in the process. If we turn the senate into the house or eliminate it. We will have the big dumb mob running the country. And quite frankly, that terrifies the shit out of me.

But the little dumb mob running the country doesn’t bother you? And when do you decide which minority mob gets to be in charge? Since once you go down the minority track it’s seemingly endless, where as with majority rule there is no one above the majority.