Some ideas to fix the senate un-balance

[ivwshane]

The *states* are based on arbitrary borders. And ok, great. How does the system benefit the country?

Yeah, I have no idea why you guys are on this tangent. States aren't created for the benefit of the country, they are created for the benefit of the people who live there. Territories were created for the benefit of the country. A territory isn't a state and a state isn't a territory.

 

[Sunburn74]

The founding fathers voted on how many senators there should be. It came down to either three or two. Only one state voted for three. However the main objection to more senators was with regards to the cost.

Having the senate be proportional defeats the whole purpose of the senate. There is only one California, there is only one Texas, there is only one north dakota, etc, etc, no state is more of a state than any other. Proportional representation would not only defeat it's propose but it would duplicate the purpose of the house.

Thus why the Senate is obsolete and should be abolished or the house should be able to override the Senate with a 2/3 vote as the house is the more democratic institution

I think that is a relatively simple fix. If an idea is good enough to pass the house with a 2/3 vote, the oligarchic Senate with it's crotchety old rich career politicians should not be able to block that legislation. Ideas that are controversial however should also be discussed in the Senate. The basic problem with politics however is that no one ever wants to relinquish power.

 

[hal2kilo]

The senate was not created for the benifit of slave holders. In fact, at the time, larger states whose population included the most slaves and whose economic value added the most value argued for a more proportional system which would have given them more representation in the senate. The current setup would be a negative for them.


AGAIN, THE PURPOSE OF THE SENATE IS TO REPRESENT THE STATE.

You keep yelling that. We get it. So it's OK for some states to have inordinate power over other states with multiples of more people, got it. After all its a feature from the founding fathers.

 

[Zorba]

That's a bullshit copout and a defeatist attitude. You guys are indeed trying to rig the system. The senate in this current climate is much more likely to switch parties than the house. In fact it's changed parties 8 times in the last 40 years vs the five times its changed in the house during the same time period.

Admitting new states and increasing the number of Representatives are all within the capability of future democrats.

For the record, I never said anything about democrats. Small states will not vote to dilute their own power, I don't care which party it is. I don't see any of the small state's senators voting to add more reps any time soon.

 

[ivwshane]

For the record it was only one territory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory

Correct and Wyoming, Montana, and Nebraska were also created from that same territory.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You already admitted that states were purposefully gerrymandered to protect the voting power of slave states. That seems pretty broken to me.

Which still has no bearing on the Constitutional function of the Senate. If you guys keep moving the goal posts, we are going to end up crossing an ocean.

 

[ivwshane]

You keep yelling that. We get it. So it's OK for some states to have inordinate power over other states with multiples of more people, got it. After all its a feature from the founding fathers.

Yeah it's OK. It's OK because they get very little representation in the house.

 

[Zorba]

We don't have slavery any more so I'm not sure why that matters now. We as a people also have the ability to move relatively easily so demographic changes not only will happen but they already are.

So your argument is that there is nothing wrong with the system, even though it was structurally setup rigged to give undue power to slave states and then to various political parties?

When the basic structure of the system was rigged and manipulated, how the can the system be good?

 

[fskimospy]

We don't have slavery any more so I'm not sure why that matters now. We as a people also have the ability to move relatively easily so demographic changes not only will happen but they already are.

If we don't have to abide by that agreement of the founders why do we have to abide by the others?

 

[fskimospy]

They aren't based on borders they are based on statehood. Period. If democrats wanted to they could split up existing terrorist into obscenely small pieces and turn them into states.

The borders of the states are essentially arbitrary.

 

[Zorba]

The founding fathers voted on how many senators there should be. It came down to either three or two. Only one state voted for three. However the main objection to more senators was with regards to the cost.

Having the senate be proportional defeats the whole purpose of the senate. There is only one California, there is only one Texas, there is only one north dakota, etc, etc, no state is more of a state than any other. Proportional representation would not only defeat it's propose but it would duplicate the purpose of the house.

It still wouldn't be anywhere near proportional. There are two dakota for the sole purpose of giving republicans more power in the senate. There is only one california to specifically limit its power vs slave states. There is nothing more to it than that. There is nothing special about a "state" and outside of the original 13 and Texas, none were independent countries before joining the union. The idea that states are some special independent body ended in 1865.

 

[ivwshane]

For the record, I never said anything about democrats. Small states will not vote to dilute their own power, I don't care which party it is. I don't see any of the small state's senators voting to add more reps any time soon.

Luckily only a majority is required to admit new states.

 

[Zorba]

Which still has no bearing on the Constitutional function of the Senate. If you guys keep moving the goal posts, we are going to end up crossing an ocean.

The argument is the senate is structurally flawed. Showing states were created in ways for the sole purpose of manipulating power in the senate proves that point. You and @ivwshane are the ones arguing that a state holds some magically meaning and that each deserves equal representation no matter what.

 

[Zorba]

Luckily only a majority is required to admit new states.

Isn't the point of this thread that a majority of senators can be had by small states? So those small states could always vote to block new representatives or new states that would dilute their power.

 

[ivwshane]

It still wouldn't be anywhere near proportional. There are two dakota for the sole purpose of giving republicans more power in the senate. There is only one california to specifically limit its power vs slave states. There is nothing more to it than that. There is nothing special about a "state" and outside of the original 13 and Texas, none were independent countries before joining the union. The idea that states are some special independent body ended in 1865.

And there were states that were added that were to be slave free and there have been states added that had nothing to do with slavery. Your point is what exactly? Do you think these arbitrary borders only benefited slave holding states?

 

[ivwshane]

Isn't the point of this thread that a majority of senators can be had by small states? So those small states could always vote to block new representatives or new states that would dilute their power.

I wasn't aware that all small states vote in unison so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[ivwshane]

The argument is the senate is structurally flawed. Showing states were created in ways for the sole purpose of manipulating power in the senate proves that point. You and @ivwshane are the ones arguing that a state holds some magically meaning and that each deserves equal representation no matter what.

You don't think states hold any meaning? Really? So all this red vs blue state stuff that's been spouted on this forum for decades was meaningless? So your opinion is that the needs of Texas and California are the same? That what's good for new York is good for Montana?

I'm at a loss of words.

 

[ivwshane]

The borders of the states are essentially arbitrary.

Of course although I'm not sure why you think that matters. What's up next? Will you be telling me that county and city borders are also arbitrary? And?

 

[Zorba]

And there were states that were added that were to be slave free and there have been states added that had nothing to do with slavery. Your point is what exactly? Do you think these arbitrary borders only benefited slave holding states?

My point is you hold the idea of a "state" as some supremely important thing, even though it is easy to show that many were arbitrarily and corruptly formed, for sole reason to manipulate the balance of power in the Senate and EC.

I wasn't aware that all small states vote in unison so I'm not sure what your point is.

Then actually read the posts you quote. Small states will not vote to dilute their power. Just like political parties won't vote to dilute their power. This is easily shown by the fact we haven't increased the house or added states in a long time.

 

[Sunburn74]

You don't think states hold any meaning? Really? So all this red vs blue state stuff that's been spouted on this forum for decades was meaningless? So your opinion is that the needs of Texas and California are the same? That what's good for new York is good for Montana?

I'm at a loss of words.

I don't think states hold any meaning. They are arbitrary distinctions between regions. They are no more important or useful than the districts drawn up to identify reps for the house.
Most people don't know the differences in laws between states or who their politicians are or even the functional differences between states. Most people don't even know the capitols of most states. In fact 40% of Americans never move more than 20 miles from their original town in their lifetime. You make it sound like most people are actively choosing the states they live in. The reality is state affiliation is largely inherited and most people generally wouldn't know the difference if it all went away.

 

[ivwshane]

My point is you hold the idea of a "state" as some supremely important thing, even though it is easy to show that many were arbitrarily and corruptly formed, for sole reason to manipulate the balance of power in the Senate and EC.


Then actually read the posts you quote. Small states will not vote to dilute their power. Just like political parties won't vote to dilute their power. This is easily shown by the fact we haven't increased the house or added states in a long time.

That's not evidence at all. There is a reason you had to make the stipulation, "in a long time" and its because small states have indeed voted to "dilute" their power.

 

[Zorba]

You don't think states hold any meaning? Really? So all this red vs blue state stuff that's been spouted on this forum for decades was meaningless? So your opinion is that the needs of Texas and California are the same? That what's good for new York is good for Montana?

I'm at a loss of words.

I never said they were useless, I don't believe they hold some magical value were every single one deserves the same voting power in Congress.

But for the record the needs of SoCal and DFW are probably more similar than Dallas and Snyder.

And again, I've never said the Senate should go away, just that the structural problems with it should be addressed.

 

[Sunburn74]

I never said they were useless, I don't believe they hold some magical value were every single one deserves the same voting power in Congress.

But for the record the needs of SoCal and DFW are probably more similar than Dallas and Snyder.

And again, I've never said the Senate should go away, just that the structural problems with it should be addressed.

They are basically useless. The majority of people don't choose the state they generally live in. Rather they just stay in whatever state they were born in meaning it's not really a choice.

 

[hal2kilo]

Yeah it's OK. It's OK because they get very little representation in the house.

No they get what all the other people get. Proportional representation.

 

[fskimospy]

I never said they were useless, I don't believe they hold some magical value were every single one deserves the same voting power in Congress.

But for the record the needs of SoCal and DFW are probably more similar than Dallas and Snyder.

And again, I've never said the Senate should go away, just that the structural problems with it should be addressed.

It should be pretty telling that in nearly every case the debate about admitting new states has not turned on the administrative merits of doing that but instead on how it would affect the balance of power in the Senate. ie: the tail is wagging the dog here.

It's just like with DC and Puerto Rico today. Should they be states? Maybe! Maybe not! There will be no meaningful debate about the merits one way or the other though because it's not going to happen until the Democrats get unified control of government because Republicans won't allow it solely due to the effect on the Senate. This right here should be a pretty obvious indication that the Senate is fucked up.