Some ideas to fix the senate un-balance

[Starbuck1975]

But voter suppression does!

Separate topic!

 

[Zorba]

Yes I am well aware of the westward slave state footrace. Orange County, CA has peculiar and interesting ties to the Confederacy. History is full of inconsistencies. Why are Hawaii and Alaska states but not other territories? It doesn’t matter. States are sovereign and get two votes each in the Senate, balanced by the House where population density matters.

"It doesn't matter how messed up it is, or that it was purposely broken over 200 years, it skews in my favor so why discuss changing anything."

 

[vi edit]

Separate topic!

Is it though? If you gerrymander, you skew voting districts. If you can get skewed representation at a local/state level that empowers a party at rates that it's not actually represented by. Those elected bodies then can engage in a number of oppressive and dubious tactics to reduce the overall voting access to the state. That DOES in fact affect senate voting.

 

[fskimospy]

Diversity comes in many forms.

I didn’t impugn your motives or character. You have a myopic view of this issue because the system is not yielding the results you desire, so the system must therefore be broken.

The results I desire are a government that is able to remain functional without recurring governance crises and one that can generally enact policies supported by overwhelming percentages of the population.

These are results that every person should desire and yet we don't have them. These are also the results that the US government was able to provide for most of its existence. As it is no longer able to do so, change is required.

I’ve also adequately responded to your Dakota challenge, but you will never acknowledge it. I don’t perceive that as a problem of character, just the echo chamber you fail to see.

You have not. In fact you've scrupulously refused to respond to it because you know as well as I do there's no actual governance case for it.

The Atlantic just published an interesting article that educated white urban liberals are the most politically prejudiced:

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/583072/

I would suggest you read that study more closely as it finds overall conservatives dislike liberals more than liberals dislike conservatives. The idea that you would need to inform me that white liberals in Brooklyn can be intolerant though is kind of funny. I live here, I know. Most people here react with the same horror as ATPN does when I tell them that we should build more houses instead of just demanding that nobody else move to the city ever. Regardless, I have large numbers of friends and associations with people who disagree with me politically. That's what comes from having a family from the Eastern Shore of Maryland, growing up in the Republican Philadelphia suburbs, and spending a considerable amount of time in the military.

My critique of the Senate is based purely on the breakdown in governance and that breakdown is undeniable. People need to stop worrying what changes mean for their political party and need to start worrying about the country.

 

[fskimospy]

"It doesn't matter how messed up it is, or that it was purposely broken over 200 years, it skews in my favor so why discuss changing anything."

Like I said before I've seen no arguments on the merits as to why continuing to do things this way makes America better, the only argument is that it's how we've always done it or that it gives conservatives more power.

I would love to see a single, solitary argument on the merits.

 

[Indus]

Separate topic!

That's like saying Winter Polar Vortex and Frostbite are seperate topics.

 

[ivwshane]

Is it though? If you gerrymander, you skew voting districts. If you can get skewed representation at a local/state level that empowers a party at rates that it's not actually represented by. Those elected bodies then can engage in a number of oppressive and dubious tactics to reduce the overall voting access to the state. That DOES in fact affect senate voting.

True but that's not an issue caused by how the senate is setup, it's a symptom of a larger problem.


The senate wasn't setup to be representative of the people, that's what the house is for.
Those of you complaining about unequal representation and gerrymanderering shouldn't be complaining about the senate, you should be complaining about the house. The house, as it's currently setup, has fewer representatives then the founders originally intended and that has caused many issues, one of which is that people's votes have become diluted.

 

[vi edit]

True but that's not an issue caused by how the senate is setup, it's a symptom of a larger problem.


The senate wasn't setup to be representative of the people, that's what the house is for.
Those of you complaining about unequal representation and gerrymanderering shouldn't be complaining about the senate, you should be complaining about the house. The house, as it's currently setup, has fewer representatives then the founders originally intended and that has caused many issues, one of which is that people's votes have become diluted.

Yeah I get that, but actual voting access to elect US Senators at a state level can be impacted. Call it a hunch, but most of the voters getting wiped off of registration records in Georgia aren't Republican leaning voters. All of those election sites that get moved aren't typically impacting rich, white folk.

I get that this problem doesn't changed the overall number of senators, but it could in fact impact the type of senators elected.

 

[fskimospy]

True but that's not an issue caused by how the senate is setup, it's a symptom of a larger problem.

The senate wasn't setup to be representative of the people, that's what the house is for.
Those of you complaining about unequal representation and gerrymanderering shouldn't be complaining about the senate, you should be complaining about the house. The house, as it's currently setup, has fewer representatives then the founders originally intended and that has caused many issues, one of which is that people's votes have become diluted.

Unequal representation as compared to the original design of the country is present in both the House and the Senate. The perversion of the intent of the House has been more deliberate but the Senate in effect is just as corrupted if not moreso.

The United States was never designed to function in a situation where those representing 11% of the population could stop all legislation.

 

[ivwshane]

The purpose of the senate was to give states equal power, including the ability of smaller states to have a say in a system that is otherwise setup to be majority ruled. The whole point of having senators elected by their states and giving them longer terms than house representatives was specifically so that they wouldn't be beholden to the whims of the people. They were put in place to protect the people from those they elected and to protect the people from themselves, as in from doing stupid shit. There is a reason our history of change has been slow and steady and it's because of the senate and it's exactly how our founding fathers wanted it.

 

[ivwshane]

Unequal representation as compared to the original design of the country is present in both the House and the Senate. The perversion of the intent of the House has been more deliberate but the Senate in effect is just as corrupted if not moreso.

The United States was never designed to function in a situation where those representing 11% of the population could stop all legislation.

Yes it was. The senate has always been two senators for every state, always. The senate was always intended to slow down change and be a check on the will of the people.

 

[Greenman]

Like I said before I've seen no arguments on the merits as to why continuing to do things this way makes America better, the only argument is that it's how we've always done it or that it gives conservatives more power.

I would love to see a single, solitary argument on the merits.

There doesn't have to be any "merits" as you see them. The senate was originally appointed by the individual states, they were supposed to have a longer view than congress. Each state was supposed to have an equal voice regardless of population. No one had an advantage. Now you want to alter the system to give some states an advantage because you think it will benefit your political party.
You keep approaching this as a democracy issue and that doesn't apply here. We are a republic of 50 states bound by a constitution. I like that system, it's worked out fairly well.

 

[Starbuck1975]

"It doesn't matter how messed up it is, or that it was purposely broken over 200 years, it skews in my favor so why discuss changing anything."

“The system isn’t delivering my desired results so the system must be broken!”

 

[ivwshane]

Yeah I get that, but actual voting access to elect US Senators at a state level can be impacted. Call it a hunch, but most of the voters getting wiped off of registration records in Georgia aren't Republican leaning voters. All of those election sites that get moved aren't typically impacting rich, white folk.

I get that this problem doesn't changed the overall number of senators, but it could in fact impact the type of senators elected.

Again, your point is correct, however your solution or cause of the issue is wrong.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The Senate is working exactly as intended. We have a separate branch of the legislative portion of our government that is based on population in the state. A lot of people are just upset that the system hasn't given them what they want, but that doesn't mean it is a broken system.

 

[fskimospy]

The purpose of the senate was to give states equal power, including the ability of smaller states to have a say in a system that is otherwise setup to be majority ruled.

At a time when the smallest state was approximately 1/10th the size of the largest state by population. Today the smallest is 1/70th the size. Does anyone here thing for even one second that Virginia would have agreed to the same system had it been seventy times the size of Delaware? Of course not. So why should we pretend the same circumstances hold true now?

The whole point of having senators elected by their states and giving them longer terms than house representatives was specifically so that they wouldn't be beholden to the whims of the people. They were put in place to protect the people from those they elected and to protect the people from themselves, as in from doing stupid shit. There is a reason our history of change has been slow and steady and it's because of the senate and it's exactly how our founding fathers wanted it.

Yes, the senate was made to be less majoritarian. It was not made to make it so democracy does not function.

 

[hal2kilo]

True but that's not an issue caused by how the senate is setup, it's a symptom of a larger problem.


The senate wasn't setup to be representative of the people, that's what the house is for.
Those of you complaining about unequal representation and gerrymanderering shouldn't be complaining about the senate, you should be complaining about the house. The house, as it's currently setup, has fewer representatives then the founders originally intended and that has caused many issues, one of which is that people's votes have become diluted.

I've advocated that the house of representatives should at least be doubled in number. The current large districts invite gerrymandering and win at all cost elections. The senate should just go away!

 

[fskimospy]

There doesn't have to be any "merits" as you see them. The senate was originally appointed by the individual states, they were supposed to have a longer view than congress. Each state was supposed to have an equal voice regardless of population. No one had an advantage. Now you want to alter the system to give some states an advantage because you think it will benefit your political party.

Huh? I don’t want to give anyone an advantage. That’s my whole point.

You keep approaching this as a democracy issue and that doesn't apply here. We are a republic of 50 states bound by a constitution. I like that system, it's worked out fairly well.

No, this is a broken governance issue.

I will never understand where this ‘the US is a republic, not a democracy’ nonsense started. The US is inarguably a democracy (we are a democratic republic)

In a democracy such as the US the wishes of the majority are generally supposed to be enacted. Not always, but usually. In a well functioning system when 80-90% of the population agrees on something that should be reflected in government policy the large majority of the time. The fact that’s not the case on so many things today points to a broken system.

If ten people lived in each of the smallest 21 states we would have a system where 210 people could prevent all legislation for the other 350 million. While this would be ‘working as intended’ by the letter of your argument surely you would agree that the system no longer worked and needed to be changed. We are in a situation where the imbalance is now 700% larger than it was when the Constitution was ratified and growing worse by the day.

Can you answer me this? How much worse does it need to get before you think change is needed? Is it ever?

 

[ivwshane]

At a time when the smallest state was approximately 1/10th the size of the largest state by population. Today the smallest is 1/70th the size. Does anyone here thing for even one second that Virginia would have agreed to the same system had it been seventy times the size of Delaware? Of course not. So why should we pretend the same circumstances hold true now?



Yes, the senate was made to be less majoritarian. It was not made to make it so democracy does not function.

I disagree with your premise. The founding fathers were well aware of the fact that new states would be added to the union and those states would naturally have a smaller populous than existing states. Their concern wasn't with how large a discrepancy in the number representatives to citizens between states, in fact the senate was created specifically to ignore that and give equal say to all states. The purpose was to A) ensure majority rule didn't run roughshod over smaller states in persuit of gains that would positively impact larger states at the expense of smaller states B) to ensure the longterm health of the nation (as in a safeguard from unintended consequences).

Unequal representation wasn't a bug of the senate, it was it's main feature.

 

[fskimospy]

I disagree with your premise. The founding fathers were well aware of the fact that new states would be added to the union and those states would naturally have a smaller populous than existing states. Their concern wasn't with how large a discrepancy in the number representatives to citizens between states, in fact the senate was created specifically to ignore that and give equal say to all states. The purpose was to A) ensure majority rule didn't run roughshod over smaller states in persuit of gains that would positively impact larger states at the expense of smaller states B) to ensure the longterm health of the nation (as in a safeguard from unintended consequences).

Unequal representation wasn't a bug of the senate, it was it's main feature.

This is simply factually false. Shitloads of them were explicitly concerned with the disparity in population between states and in fact no less than Alexander Hamilton made my same point that states are simply arbitrary boundaries anyway. The plan barely passed over the objections of larger states and the idea that it would have still passed if the disparity were 700% larger than it was is fanciful.

We wouldn’t make the same deal today so why should we pretend otherwise?

 

[ivwshane]

I've advocated that the house of representatives should at least be doubled in number. The current large districts invite gerrymandering and win at all cost elections. The senate should just go away!

I agree that the house should be at least double in size but I disagree that the senate should go away. Think of the senate like the mom of government and the house as her children. The children (house) may vote for ice cream for dinner from here on out and maybe even 90% of Americans agree, hell maybe even the uncles and aunts (other states) agree because they know that an all ice cream diet will be an economic boom because their state grows sugar and has a huge dairy industry. But mom (senate) knows that in the long run ice cream for dinner will result in health issues and while some states will benefit the smaller states that grow vegetables will suffer greatly, so she votes against the will of the people.

 

[ivwshane]

This is simply factually false. Shitloads of them were explicitly concerned with the disparity in population between states and in fact no less than Alexander Hamilton made my same point that states are simply arbitrary boundaries anyway. The plan barely passed over the objections of larger states and the idea that it would have still passed if the disparity were 700% larger than it was is fanciful.

We wouldn’t make the same deal today so why should we pretend otherwise?

Yeah, the great thing about the constitution is that it was agreed upon by all. So whether or not some had concerns really doesn't mean shit as they all signed on to it.

What you are advocating for is the abolition of the senate and to be replaced with another house or not at all. Both would be pointless and would directly conflict with what the founding fathers agreed to and reasoned was necessary.

 

[hal2kilo]

I agree that the house should be at least double in size but I disagree that the senate should go away. Think of the senate like the mom of government and the house as her children. The children (house) may vote for ice cream for dinner from here on out and maybe even 90% of Americans agree, hell maybe even the uncles and aunts (other states) agree because they know that an all ice cream diet will be an economic boom because their state grows sugar and has a huge dairy industry. But mom (senate) knows that in the long run ice cream for dinner will result in health issues and while some states will benefit the smaller states that grow vegetables will suffer greatly, so she votes against the will of the people.

Yeah, the great thing about the constitution is that it was agreed upon by all. So whether or not some had concerns really doesn't mean shit as they all signed on to it.

What you are advocating for is the abolition of the senate and to be replaced with another house or not at all. Both would be pointless and would directly conflict with what the founding fathers agreed to and reasoned was necessary.

Haven't we figured out by now that the founding fathers ideas were not without flaws? I see this used all the time. Once again something is desparately broken with our federal government. I think it's the Senate. You happy with the SCOTUS?

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, the great thing about the constitution is that it was agreed upon by all. So whether or not some had concerns really doesn't mean shit as they all signed on to it.

If Virginia had been faced with an identical situation to California today it is highly likely they would never have signed on to the Constitution, considering they had grave misgivings when the disparity was 1/7th of what it is today. Why on earth would that not be extremely, extremely relevant as to whether or not we continue on with their agreement today?

Also, who gives a shit what the founding fathers signed on to as they also signed on to keeping slavery around. In the past we recognized when things weren't working and changed them, this fetishization of what people thought who have been dead for two centuries is baffling to me.

What you are advocating for is the abolition of the senate and to be replaced with another house or not at all. Both would be pointless and would directly conflict with what the founding fathers agreed to and reasoned was necessary.

I never argued for the abolition of the Senate (although I would be fine with it). Also as said above I frankly don't give a shit what the founding fathers agreed to. They've been dead 200 years. We're alive. What's important now is what government works for us.

 

[ivwshane]

Haven't we figured out by now that the founding fathers ideas were not without flaws? I see this used all the time. Once again something is desparately broken with our federal government. I think it's the Senate. You happy with the SCOTUS?

I'm unhappy with mitch McConnell who clearly broke senate rules and violated his constitutional duty. The senate isn't broken, mitch McConnell is.

We don't destroy the presidency and get rid of the office of the President because we have a piece of shit in office. We vote him out and put rules and laws in place to ensure such abuse can't happen again.

So far no one has argued against the reasoning for the senate's creation in the first place. All I've heard are reasons why the house needs to be fixed, gerrymanderering, unequal representation, obstruction by the minority. Those are all issues directly related to the house.