Some ideas to fix the senate un-balance

[Starbuck1975]

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?

There is quite a bit of wisdom actually. We are the United States of America. Each state is a sovereign entity with its own constitution, and our entire government is a series of checks and balances for distributing power such that one entity cannot establish a monopoly.

California may be densely populated now, but that was not always the case. The House is where California gets to exert its population muscle. The Senate is just fine as is.

 

[soulcougher73]

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.

That might be a decent idea. Each state has 2 senaters. One has to be D and one has to be R. Perfect balance. Then they would have to compromise all the time. The only thing i dont like about that idea is it reafirms there are only 2 parties for now and forever.

 

[dank69]

There is quite a bit of wisdom actually. We are the United States of America. Each state is a sovereign entity with its own constitution, and our entire government is a series of checks and balances for distributing power such that one entity cannot establish a monopoly.

California may be densely populated now, but that was not always the case. The House is where California gets to exert its population muscle. The Senate is just fine as is.

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

 

[fskimospy]

There is quite a bit of wisdom actually. We are the United States of America. Each state is a sovereign entity with its own constitution, and our entire government is a series of checks and balances for distributing power such that one entity cannot establish a monopoly.

California may be densely populated now, but that was not always the case. The House is where California gets to exert its population muscle. The Senate is just fine as is.

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.

 

[soulcougher73]

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.

The problem i see with that is i feel you are only talking about the current POS's in power. It does nothing to bring balance or fairness if the "other" team were to gain power and do the same thing. But i guess it depends if you are looking at it from a partisan point where you think "your" team could never do any wrong, vs. just the right and fair way the system should be.

 

[SMOGZINN]

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.

Would not work. It is article 2 of the constitution, and as a general principle the courts assume that the lower the number the greater the importance. To invalidate Article 2 you would have to find it in contention with Article 1 (probably section 4). Otherwise anything it is in contention with would have to be what changed.

 

[SMOGZINN]

That might be a decent idea. Each state has 2 senaters. One has to be D and one has to be R. Perfect balance. Then they would have to compromise all the time. The only thing i dont like about that idea is it reafirms there are only 2 parties for now and forever.

The problem with that is that once it is established that your party will get a seat in the Senate there is little need to be mainstream at all. What happens when one party or the other radicalized so much that they represent only a tiny fraction of the people but still have to be compromised with to get anything done.

 

[Starbuck1975]

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

My point stands without having to.

 

[dank69]

My point stands without having to.

No it doesn't...

 

[fskimospy]

My point stands without having to.

I think showing how your idea is a good idea in practice is pretty integral to proving that it's a good idea.

 

[woolfe9998]

Disproportionate representation in the Senate isn't our only structural problem. We have the EC which is a fundamentally undemocratic way of electing the POTUS. And for the House, we have gerrymandering. The entire system wasn't meant to handle the kind of political polarization we're experiencing right now. Nor was it meant to handle the corruption of the GOP.

Anyone who can look at all this in its totality and think we don't need any structural changes is in denial.

 

[Maxima1]

Would not work. It is article 2 of the constitution, and as a general principle the courts assume that the lower the number the greater the importance. To invalidate Article 2 you would have to find it in contention with Article 1 (probably section 4). Otherwise anything it is in contention with would have to be what changed.

You just find people willing to do it. Remember Bush vs. Gore?

The problem i see with that is i feel you are only talking about the current POS's in power. It does nothing to bring balance or fairness if the "other" team were to gain power and do the same thing. But i guess it depends if you are looking at it from a partisan point where you think "your" team could never do any wrong, vs. just the right and fair way the system should be.

You pass voting rights statutes ASAP. This would moderate how far right they'll go, and anger on the other side would likely subside (people got over Bush v. Gore pretty quickly). Most presidents get 2 terms, and Republicans recently have only won with the EC.

 

[interchange]

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

No I don't think the Senate is functioning as it needs to right now, but I don't see how the structure is the reason for it.

 

[fskimospy]

Disproportionate representation in the Senate isn't our only structural problem. We have the EC which is a fundamentally undemocratic way of electing the POTUS. And for the House, we have gerrymandering. The entire system wasn't meant to handle the kind of political polarization we're experiencing right now. Nor was it meant to handle the corruption of the GOP.

Anyone who can look at all this in its totality and think we don't need any structural changes is in denial.

Yes, can anyone honestly look at the current state of our system of government and say 'yes, working as intended.'?

 

[Maxima1]

No I don't think the Senate is functioning as it needs to right now, but I don't see how the structure is the reason for it.

Conservatives have a strong hold on more states. So it makes it difficult for the true majority to get even a simple majority. How is that not a problem?

 

[ElFenix]

abolish states. have senators represent urban agglomerations.

 

[K1052]

It's just going to continue to get worse as populations continue to build up in heavy urban areas and young voters leave red states to places with actual jobs. I don't know the answer short of constitutional amendment (HA! good luck) or a ton of liberal minded billionaires getting together and basically subsidizing a mass exodus from NYC and Cali to take over WY and North Dakota.

Lifting the cap on US House Seats should be job 1. It can be done just by passing law.

 

[Sunburn74]

Allow the house to override the Senate with a 2/3 vote.
Basically anything the house passes 2/3 or greater doesn't even need a Senate vote.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I think showing how your idea is a good idea in practice is pretty integral to proving that it's a good idea.

The Senate was not my idea but is integral to the founding of our nation. It is on you to provide a compelling argument to change it. California’s frustrations is not a compelling argument.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Conservatives have a strong hold on more states. So it makes it difficult for the true majority to get even a simple majority. How is that not a problem?

The Democrats held the Senate majority less than a decade ago. They squandered it.

 

[Maxima1]

The Democrats held the Senate majority less than a decade ago. They squandered it.

So? We could possibly be looking at multiple decades where Democrats can't even get 50. Even 2020 is not a given for them despite the worst administration in US history. And if Democrats can't capture it again at that point? it's definitely going to cycle where they'll have to wait a number of years to get a chance at it again.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So? We could possibly be looking at multiple decades where Democrats can't even get 50. Even 2020 is not a given for them despite the worst administration in US history. And if Democrats can't capture it again at that point? it's definitely going to cycle where they'll have to wait a number of years to get a chance at it again.

I suppose they could try campaigning for those seats with agendas that resonate in the states that they lost.

 

[Starbuck1975]

No it doesn't...

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

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Seems to me the entire system wasn't meant to handle the concentration of federal power we have now.

 

[brandonbull]

When the majority leader effectively relinquishes his constitutionally-mandated duty, and he gives no fucks about it, then yes: the senate is fundamentally broken. Fuckstain has been at it for a while now.

Bless your heart.