Some ideas to fix the senate un-balance

[brandonbull]

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?

Maybe Senators should be elected by each state's legislative bodies and not by general elections?

 

[brandonbull]

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.

So what this is telling us is that 52 Senators can out vote the remaining 48?

 

[brandonbull]

You didn't explain the "wisdom" that led to a North and South Dakota.

Maybe they didn't like an East and West or Top and Bottom?

 

[soulcougher73]

So what this is telling us is that 52 Senators can out vote the remaining 48?

Yes, by only representing 17% of the people. That is a huge issue and anyone not a partisan hack would see that.

Could be less than 17% depending how they came to the 17% number. It only take 50%+1 to get the seat. I don’t feel like doing the math to know which 17% they are referring to because even the beat case 17% is scary.

 

[Greenman]

Maybe Senators should be elected by each state's legislative bodies and not by general elections?

What's old is new again.

 

[sportage]

This is how we fix the senate. And the house. And most everything in politics.
TERM LIMITS!
The photo is not pretty and quite shocking, but so true.
No politician can serve for this long and not become corrupt.
So whats wrong with politics? Here is the answer. The correct answer.

 

[Indus]

Maybe Senators should be elected by each state's legislative bodies and not by general elections?

Gerrymandering is fucking that up..

The only way to have a fair election is like germany.. have the people vote for a party. Find out the % which parties win what % (lower than 5% is ignored) and let the parties decide who is the best candidate for the seat to carry the agenda of the people.

No fucking distractions like so and so had an affair.

 

[dank69]

Sure it does. Term limits seem like a more workable solution than shaking your fist at state lines.

Term limits make sense if you're a fucking idiot. No wonder you also think the Senate is currently working as intended. Go ahead though, keep lobbying for the removal of the only mechanism we have to punish politicians who don't do what the people want. More lame ducks sounds like just what the doctor ordered.

 

[ElFenix]

Maybe Senators should be elected by each state's legislative bodies and not by general elections?

states shouldn't have representation independent of the population. people are what matters, not arbitrary lines drawn on maps.


anyway, for a more realistic fix, just changing how leadership works would be a vast improvement. leadership should not be able to torpedo legislation that has majority support. but it very much can (fuck you denny hastert you pedophile piece of shit)

 

[nickqt]

If you want the Senate changed, it's because you aren't afraid of demographic changes.

If you want the Senate to remain the same, it's because you know god damn well that the demographic changes would make the Republican party what it is and should be otherwise - a regional party.

I say just abolish the Senate, give the powers to the House, and add another 300 or so House members so that House districts are relatively proportional to each other, and the US population as a whole.

The Senate is fucking stupid.

 

[Sunburn74]

You either believe in democracy or you don't.
Having a senate is not really democratic. It's more of an oligarchy.

 

[ivwshane]

You didn't answer my question - what is the wisdom of creating five states out of empty land in the midwest and only one out of most of the west coast? It's exactly that sort of application that has drastically altered the Senate from its original incarnation. What's the wisdom there? What is special about Wyoming or the Dakotas?

Like I said, the United States would likely not even exist if Virginia had been forced to accept Delaware as having 7,000% more per capita representation in the Senate than it had in the House. It's foolish to pretend that nothing has changed in nearly two and a half centuries. The Constitution was never intended to go unchanged for this long or to be so unable to adapt to changing circumstances. In fact, people like Jefferson thought we should have enshrined a process of mandatory revision every so many years. Sadly in no small part due to the corruption of the original function of the Senate amending the Constitution is now likely effectively impossible. I doubt we will see another successful amendment in our lifetimes.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you implying that the states were created for political reasons? Wasn't Dakota split specifically to appease both parties?

I don't understand your concern. Especially with the possibility of adding new states that would probably lean towards Democrats.

 

[Fern]

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.

Asheville NC???

WTF are you talking about?

Asheville is about the most liberal city this side of San Francisco

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

The purpose of the senate was to represent the state's needs, its why senators were originally elected by the state's legislature, ie people who represent people from all over the state.

There is nothing wrong with the senate other than the rules which govern it which are not set in stone. If you have issues with the senate then I'm guessing your real problem is with the traitor currently running it, mitch mcconnell.

 

[Indus]

Asheville NC???

WTF are you talking about?

Asheville is about the most liberal city this side of San Francisco

Fern

And it's perfectly gerrymandered enough to be represented by 2 Republicans - Mark Meadows and Patrick McHenry.

WTF am I talking about indeed.. how is that possible?

Gerrymandering - which is voter suppression in a rigged way.

 

[Thebobo]

And it's perfectly gerrymandered enough to be represented by 2 Republicans - Mark Meadows and Patrick McHenry.

WTF am I talking about indeed.. how is that possible?

Gerrymandering - which is voter suppression in a rigged way.

Yeah ain't that some shit

 

[Greenman]

You either believe in democracy or you don't.
Having a senate is not really democratic. It's more of an oligarchy.

That's pretty accurate. Personally, I don't believe in direct democracy. It's based on the demonstrably false concept that a million stupid will people will make better decisions than one stupid person. I very much like the idea of the constitution being a set of ridged constraints on what we can and can't do.

 

[Maxima1]

The purpose of the senate was to represent the state's needs, its why senators were originally elected by the state's legislature, ie people who represent people from all over the state.

Small state representatives were hungry for power. Some great quotes from Hamilton:

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa22.htm

The right of equal suffrage among the States is another exceptionable part of the Confederation. Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Deleware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense. It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America;3 and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third. The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller. To acquiesce in such a privation of their due importance in the political scale, would be not merely to be insensible to the love of power, but even to sacrifice the desire of equality. It is neither rational to expect the first, nor just to require the last. The smaller States, considering how peculiarly their safety and welfare depend on union, ought readily to renounce a pretension which, if not relinquished, would prove fatal to its duration.

[...]

But this is not all: what at first sight may seem a remedy, is, in reality, a poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. Congress, from the nonattendance of a few States, have been frequently in the situation of a Polish diet, where a single veto has been sufficient to put a stop to all their movements. A sixtieth part of the Union, which is about the proportion of Delaware and Rhode Island, has several times been able to oppose an entire bar to its operations. This is one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0109

“Mr. HAMILTON observed that individuals forming political Societies modify their rights differently, with regard to suffrage. Examples of it are found in all the States. In all of them some individuals are deprived of the right altogether, not having the requisite qualification of property. In some of the States the right of suffrage is allowed in some cases and refused in others. To vote for a member in one branch, a certain quantum of property, to vote for a member in another branch of the Legislature, a higher quantum of property is required. In like manner States may modify their right of suffrage differently, the larger exercising a larger, the smaller a smaller share of it. But as States are a collection of individual men which ought we to respect most, the rights of the people composing them, or of the artificial beings resulting from the composition. Nothing could be more preposterous or absurd than to sacrifice the former to the latter. It has been sd. that if the smaller States renounce their equality, they renounce at the same time their liberty. The truth is it is a contest for power, not for liberty.”

If therefore three states contain a majority of the inhabitants of America, ought they to be governed by a minority? Would the inhabitants of the great states ever submit to this? If the smaller states maintain this principle, through a love of power, will not the larger, from the same motives, be equally tenacious to preserve their power? They are to surrender their rights—for what? for the preservation of an artificial being. We propose a free government—Can it be so if partial distinctions are maintained? I agree with the gentleman from Delaware [George Read], that if the state governments are to act in the general government, it affords the strongest reason for exclusion. In the state of New-York, five counties form a majority of representatives, and yet the government is in no danger, because the laws have a general operation. The small states exaggerate their danger, and on this ground contend for an undue proportion of power.

 

[cmcartman]

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?

Why not get rid of it entirely? That seems to be what you're asking for and a whole lot simpler.

 

[ivwshane]

Small state representatives were hungry for power. Some great quotes from Hamilton:

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa22.htm

The right of equal suffrage among the States is another exceptionable part of the Confederation. Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Deleware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense. It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America;3 and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third. The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller. To acquiesce in such a privation of their due importance in the political scale, would be not merely to be insensible to the love of power, but even to sacrifice the desire of equality. It is neither rational to expect the first, nor just to require the last. The smaller States, considering how peculiarly their safety and welfare depend on union, ought readily to renounce a pretension which, if not relinquished, would prove fatal to its duration.

[...]

But this is not all: what at first sight may seem a remedy, is, in reality, a poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. Congress, from the nonattendance of a few States, have been frequently in the situation of a Polish diet, where a single veto has been sufficient to put a stop to all their movements. A sixtieth part of the Union, which is about the proportion of Delaware and Rhode Island, has several times been able to oppose an entire bar to its operations. This is one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0109

“Mr. HAMILTON observed that individuals forming political Societies modify their rights differently, with regard to suffrage. Examples of it are found in all the States. In all of them some individuals are deprived of the right altogether, not having the requisite qualification of property. In some of the States the right of suffrage is allowed in some cases and refused in others. To vote for a member in one branch, a certain quantum of property, to vote for a member in another branch of the Legislature, a higher quantum of property is required. In like manner States may modify their right of suffrage differently, the larger exercising a larger, the smaller a smaller share of it. But as States are a collection of individual men which ought we to respect most, the rights of the people composing them, or of the artificial beings resulting from the composition. Nothing could be more preposterous or absurd than to sacrifice the former to the latter. It has been sd. that if the smaller States renounce their equality, they renounce at the same time their liberty. The truth is it is a contest for power, not for liberty.”

If therefore three states contain a majority of the inhabitants of America, ought they to be governed by a minority? Would the inhabitants of the great states ever submit to this? If the smaller states maintain this principle, through a love of power, will not the larger, from the same motives, be equally tenacious to preserve their power? They are to surrender their rights—for what? for the preservation of an artificial being. We propose a free government—Can it be so if partial distinctions are maintained? I agree with the gentleman from Delaware [George Read], that if the state governments are to act in the general government, it affords the strongest reason for exclusion. In the state of New-York, five counties form a majority of representatives, and yet the government is in no danger, because the laws have a general operation. The small states exaggerate their danger, and on this ground contend for an undue proportion of power.

The great thing about the constitution is that it's principals were agreed to and ratified by all those involved. Even better is that to change those principals it requires a similar universal agreement and ratification.

Again, the issue isn't small states preventing more populous states from enacting their agenda, the issue is a party that doesn't believe in the purpose of the institution itself and a leader who seems intent on corrupting the process.

Democrats would be wise to do what Republicans have done to Democrat party leaders and to demonize Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell. The difference, of course, is that their demonization of Mitch would be rooted in fact and reality.

The senate isn't broken, the people who were elected that lead it are.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Term limits make sense if you're a fucking idiot.

Still better than shaking your fists at a map.

 

[chowderhead]

next time Democrats win control of the Senate, just remove all fillibusters. As it stands now with so many small red states it is so much easier for Republicans to control 40 than Democrats to win 60. I would also start by adding Washington DC and Puerto Rico as states. Annex Canada and that is an additional 10
states.

 

[Zorba]

next time Democrats win control of the Senate, just remove all fillibusters. As it stands now with so many small red states it is so much easier for Republicans to control 40 than Democrats to win 60. I would also start by adding Washington DC and Puerto Rico as states. Annex Canada and that is an additional 10
states.

The problem is, it is also much easier for republicans to win 50 states than dems, with much few votes.

I am not against the concept of the senate, but it is way off balance. You have states with lower population the mid-size cities and you have states smaller than many metro areas given the same number of votes as CA, TX and FL. We either need a massive realignment of the states, or give states a variable number of senators, say 1 through 4 based on population.

 

[chowderhead]

The problem is, it is also much easier for republicans to win 50 states than dems, with much few votes.

I am not against the concept of the senate, but it is way off balance. You have states with lower population the mid-size cities and you have states smaller than many metro areas given the same number of votes as CA, TX and FL. We either need a massive realignment of the states, or give states a variable number of senators, say 1 through 4 based on population.

There is no way to reform the way Senators are elected since that would require a Constitutional amendment needing 3/4 of the states to ratify. The smaller states would never cede this power so the only way to reform the Senate is to dilute it with more state/Senators and removing the filibuster.
You can also get billionaires and their companies to encourage 100k progressives to move to each of these red states e.g. Wyoming, Idaho, North and South Dakota, Mississippi, etc.

 

[Indus]

next time Democrats win control of the Senate, just remove all fillibusters. As it stands now with so many small red states it is so much easier for Republicans to control 40 than Democrats to win 60. I would also start by adding Washington DC and Puerto Rico as states. Annex Canada and that is an additional 10
states.

Nah. Just make Atlanta, South Florida, Southern Missouri, Eastern Carolina, and divide California into 10 states.

That'll do the trick.