Some ideas to fix the senate un-balance

[Maxima1]

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!!

They did. Pack the court with people who are willing to change it.

 

[soulcougher73]

They did. Pack the court with people who are willing to change it.

I dont think the SC is the one who makes and passes amendments though?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Stupid, not a surprise

Lame ad hominem, not a surprise.

The Senate provides equal representation to every state by design. Perhaps it is the House are looking for.

 

[dank69]

Feature, not a bug

He said, without addressing a single concern raised so far. Benefits conservatives so fuck everyone else that doesn't agree.

 

[hal2kilo]

He said, without addressing a single concern raised so far. Benefits conservatives so fuck everyone else that doesn't agree.

I see you see.

 

[Maxima1]

I dont think the SC is the one who makes and passes amendments though?

No. But they can potentially rule that it's no longer tenable because it violates some other part of the Constitution e.g. it's affirmative action for white people. XD

i've also seen the argument that states have already given their "consent" in various ways in regards to equal voting rights, so just have Congress create a statute reapportioning the 100 Senators and call it a day.

 

[soulcougher73]

Lame ad hominem, not a surprise.

The Senate provides equal representation to every state by design. Perhaps it is the House are looking for.

Its already been shown in this thread its not equal representation. As Eskimospy said "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". If the numbers where in the Dems favor, youd also want change. Rightfully so, and id agree with you. You see. I'm not a partisan hack.

 

[interchange]

I personally don't think the Senate is broken because of unequal representation. To try and mitigate that would likely require significant expansion of the Senate. Personally, I think it's useful to have a Congressional body with fewer members and to have more gradual turnover of members where there's more opportunity to focus on legislation instead of reelection.

Obviously there are some tradeoffs. But who's to say the results would be better if done differently?

Anyway, I think I'm not going to be persuaded unless someone lays out an alternative which is more compelling.

 

[Maxima1]

I personally don't think the Senate is broken because of unequal representation. To try and mitigate that would likely require significant expansion of the Senate. Personally, I think it's useful to have a Congressional body with fewer members and to have more gradual turnover of members where there's more opportunity to focus on legislation instead of reelection.

Obviously there are some tradeoffs. But who's to say the results would be better if done differently?

Anyway, I think I'm not going to be persuaded unless someone lays out an alternative which is more compelling.

it definitely would not, especially if we get rid of the stupid filibuster. It only takes a little tweaking to give Democrats a much better fighting chance, otherwise there's a possibility where Democrats can keep missing the mark for significantly more than a decade.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Its already been shown in this thread its not equal representation. As Eskimospy said "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". If the numbers where in the Dems favor, youd also want change. Rightfully so, and id agree with you. You see. I'm not a partisan hack.

Again, that is by design. The Senate gives equivalent power to all states. I see the wisdom in this balance, regardless of who controls the Senate. You see, I’m not a partisan hack.

 

[Starbuck1975]

He said, without addressing a single concern raised so far. Benefits conservatives so fuck everyone else that doesn't agree.

There are no concerns to raise over a system working as designed. Your argument is the typical California whining. We aren’t getting what we want so the system must be broken!

 

[Maxima1]

Again, that is by design. The Senate gives equivalent power to all states. I see the wisdom in this balance, regardless of who controls the Senate. You see, I’m not a partisan hack.

WIth no cap on how far the ratios can deviate, it can get really imbalanced and it is imbalanced to an absurd degree at the present. it needs to change.

http://crystalball.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ljs2007092701/

"In the early years of the Republic, the population ratio of the most populated state, Virginia, and the least populated state, Delaware, was 12 to 1. In 2004 that ratio was an incredible 70 to 1 between California and tiny Wyoming. Therefore, the current Senate is absurdly skewed in the direction of the small states. Theoretically, if the twenty-six smallest states held together on all votes, they would control the U.S. Senate, with a total of just under 17 percent of the country's population!"

[...]

The key to keep in mind is that under the Constitution's bicameral system for the legislature, nothing passes without Senate assent. Therefore, the Congress has a one-house veto on legislation, and to control the Senate is to control the legislative outcome, and indeed much of what the federal government actually does. James Madison foresaw this dilemma, and he vigorously argued, during the Constitutional Convention, for proportional representation by population in the Senate, not just the House. Madison's fears have been validated as the gap between small and large states has grown to the point that states with fifty-one times the population as others have the same representation.

 

[blackangst1]

The House is D the Senate is R. Perfectly balanced.

 

[vi edit]

The House is D the Senate is R. Perfectly balanced.

Not really? Senate confirms appointments, some of them for life. When a small percent of population is overwhelmingly represented you end up with cabinets, judges and other public servants that don't necessarily align with a lot of actual American's views.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't have a problem with how the senate is setup but I do have a problem with how it works and how one person can control the agenda. Mitch McConnell is the epitome of what's wrong with it.

 

[Zorba]

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!!

The problem with amending the Constitution is you have to get people that currently have the unfair advantage to vote to give it up and that won't happen.

The Constitution has several problems with elections and representation. These problems have become much more clear in the last couple of decades as Republicans have put party in front of country and radicalized their base. Unfortunately, I don't see a real path to fixing any of them.

 

[blackangst1]

I don't have a problem with how the senate is setup but I do have a problem with how it works and how one person can control the agenda. Mitch McConnell is the epitome of what's wrong with it.

Since you have a problem with one person can control the agenda Im guessing you also have a problem with Pelosi? Or no since she's D.

 

[vi edit]

Truth be told, I'd rather both house and senate be total even split. Half the seats are republican, half are democratic. Come election time you vote for one of each. End this majority rule bull shit and all of the negative consequences associated with trying to maintain power as demographics shift. God forbid politicians actually have to work together and get some some sort of agreement across the isle to get something to pass. And while we are in pie in the sky wants, lets make court appointments term limited too. Set them for 14 years or something and split them between administration appointments. Then you end the stupid weaponizing of the supreme court.

 

[ivwshane]

Since you have a problem with one person can control the agenda Im guessing you also have a problem with Pelosi? Or no since she's D.

Yes. I would hope that there would be a better system for the minority to have a say without giving them the power to poison pill or obstruct everything to death.

 

[fskimospy]

I personally don't think the Senate is broken because of unequal representation. To try and mitigate that would likely require significant expansion of the Senate. Personally, I think it's useful to have a Congressional body with fewer members and to have more gradual turnover of members where there's more opportunity to focus on legislation instead of reelection.

Obviously there are some tradeoffs. But who's to say the results would be better if done differently?

Anyway, I think I'm not going to be persuaded unless someone lays out an alternative which is more compelling.

Is there any evidence that the Senate is in fact currently focusing on legislation instead or re-election?

 

[fskimospy]

Again, that is by design. The Senate gives equivalent power to all states. I see the wisdom in this balance, regardless of who controls the Senate. You see, I’m not a partisan hack.

Can you explain the wisdom of this balance, considering that nearly every state after the original 13 were effectively arbitrary political constructs?

EDIT: Like what wisdom specifically was there in creating a North Dakota and a South Dakota but one California, or a Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and the Dakotas as compared to one California? What specifically about that upper midwest/west region merited five times the senatorial representation of the state that occupies most of the west coast?

 

[Maxima1]

The problem with amending the Constitution is you have to get people that currently have the unfair advantage to vote to give it up and that won't happen.

The Constitution has several problems with elections and representation. These problems have become much more clear in the last couple of decades as Republicans have put party in front of country and radicalized their base. Unfortunately, I don't see a real path to fixing any of them.

Again, I don't see why people say this. There is no amendment needed to court pack. Winning the Senate once with a simple majority is all what we need to vanquish the more radical conservatism that has been infecting our institutions for decades.

We don't need another spineless Democrat president who wrings their hands, while the GOP keeps doing corrupted power moves themselves. Shee-it, it's still possible these assholes pretend Trump isn't impeachable once the criminal crime family is exposed. The system needs shaken up badly.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Again, I don't see why people say this. There is no amendment needed to court pack. Winning the Senate once with a simple majority is all what we need to vanquish the more radical conservatism that has been infecting our institutions for decades.

We don't need another spineless Democrat president who wrings their hands, while the GOP keeps doing corrupted power moves themselves. Shee-it, it's still possible these assholes pretend Trump isn't impeachable once the criminal crime family is exposed. The system needs shaken up badly.

You can't change the composition of the Senate through the courts. Article 2 of the Constitution lays out in clear language that:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

That is about as clear and straightforward as the US constitution gets. There is no wiggle room in that. You must have a amendment to change it.

 

[hal2kilo]

You can't change the composition of the Senate through the courts. Article 2 of the Constitution lays out in clear language that:



That is about as clear and straightforward as the US constitution gets. There is no wiggle room in that. You must have a amendment to change it.

Court packing and number of Senators are 2 different issues. As far as I know, cause FDR was accused of attempting it, is that the number of judges in the SCOTUS is not a constitutional issue, and the senate can change the number.

 

[Maxima1]

You can't change the composition of the Senate through the courts. Article 2 of the Constitution lays out in clear language that:



That is about as clear and straightforward as the US constitution gets. There is no wiggle room in that. You must have a amendment to change it.

Yes there is. You just say it violates another part of the Constitution. it would be similar how interracial marriage bans weren't struck down until 1967.

Your argument can be said about freedom of speech, 2nd Amendment, gerrymandering etc. as well, yet there's no push back. We just pretend the Republican justices are neutral arbiters when their rulings in a lot of ways make a mockery out of a lot of things.