Some ideas to fix the senate un-balance

[ivwshane]

And this is the exact problem with the function of the senate. A good system will continue to function with a few bad players. A bad system allows a small minority of bad players to completely shut it down.

Uh, the senate has been functioning until recently and it did so with most of the same people. Mitch broke it.

 

[ivwshane]

Yeah, I'm curious how MEP's are allocated according to race in the EU. The counter-veiling trends is that Belgium and the Netherlands are small but have substantial 'persons of colour' populations. That might ensure it doesn't end up too bad. But apart from that, most of the non-white citizens of Europe live in the larger countries such as France and the UK, while the smaller Baltic and Eastern European countries tend to be much more white. The effect of the lop-sided European parliamentary seat allocation could be that the average person-of-colour in Europe gets less of a vote than the average white person.



You seem confused - your arguments exactly work the other way from what you say. California's tougher local laws are just that - local laws. That's not about a Californian getting more say over laws in, say, Vermont, than does someone in Vermont.

It's the reverse of my point. Why should areas that have lower-population density get disproportionate power to _impose_ laws on those who live in higher-population density states? Why should (and I'm mostly thinking about the EU here) a Luxembourg voter get 11 times as much say, as an individual, over the EU laws that apply to me in the UK as I do?

I'm interested in the argument in a US context for two reasons - one being that uncritical pro-EU people will often point to the US as an example of a 'working system' (when I don't want the EU to follow that model, thanks). Another being that the US system affects the country's foreign policy, meaning it ends up disproportionately influenced by low-population regions, which tend to be the least knowledgeable about the outside world.

Then you missed my point which was that states are very meaningful and are not uniform in their needs and issues. The senate ensures that all states get a voice and just like how individuals with large sums of money shouldn't have more influence in the house than any other individual, larger states shouldn't get more say either.

In the Senate no state gets a disproportionate amount of influence as they are all equal. A small state has no more power to pass laws that hurt a large states than a large state has power to hurt a small state.

 

[pmv]

Then you missed my point which was that states are very meaningful and are not uniform in their needs and issues. The senate ensures that all states get a voice and just like how individuals with large sums of money shouldn't have more influence in the house than any other individual, larger states shouldn't get more say either.

In the Senate no state gets a disproportionate amount of influence as they are all equal. A small state has no more power to pass laws that hurt a large states than a large state has power to hurt a small state.

But a resident of a small state has more power to pass laws that hurt a resident of a large state than a resident of a large state has to pass laws that hurt the resident of a small state. That's the problem. People vote, not states.

Plus 'states are not uniform in their needs and issues' - well, neither are genders or races or any number of other ways of grouping people. What's so special about area of residency? Why not give extra representation to smaller racial groups as well?

(Again, though, I'm really arguing-by-proxy about the future of Europe...it is, of course, up to Americans what you do in America).

 

[ivwshane]

But a resident of a small state has more power to pass laws that hurt a resident of a large state than a resident of a large state has to pass laws that hurt the resident of a small state. That's the problem. People vote, not states.

Plus 'states are not uniform in their needs and issues' - well, neither are genders or races or any number of other ways of grouping people. What's so special about area of residency? Why not give extra representation to smaller racial groups as well?

(Again, though, I'm really arguing-by-proxy about the future of Europe...it is, of course, up to Americans what you do in America).

Your first sentence is incorrect.

As far as giving representation to racial groups, that's not how people are represented. They are represented based on where they live, race, sex, or any other quality plays no role other than its up to the voters to elect who and what policies they want their representative to work on.

 

[mect]

Uh, the senate has been functioning until recently and it did so with most of the same people. Mitch broke it.

As I said, if a single person can break a system, it's not a good system. And I think it's definitely up for debate if it was working well until recently.

 

[ivwshane]

As I said, if a single person can break a system, it's not a good system. And I think it's definitely up for debate if it was working well until recently.

A single person can break any system. Show me what the replacement would look like and how it couldn't be corrupted.

 

[mect]

A single person can break any system. Show me what the replacement would look like and how it couldn't be corrupted.

No, there are supposed to be checks and balances in place to prevent one man from breaking the system. Take for example the POTUS. Trump is about as bad as a president can be. However, if the rest of government was functioning properly, this wouldn't matter. The same thing is true for the Senate. If the senate was functioning properly, McConnell wouldn't be the Majority Leader the way he is behaving. The reason this doesn't happen is because its not just one person, but it is a group representing a minority of this country, and they recognize that the only way for them to protect their power is to give unconditional support to McConnell, who similarly gives unconditional support to Trump.

The reason they are able to get away with this is the very topic of this thread. Because the Senate gives far to much representation and power to a minority group. And the impacts of this reach far beyond small states being able to simply protect themselves from larger states. They don't use their power to protect their own states, they use that power to protect their political party. Particularly where the senate is responsible for confirming judges, it allows low population states to control not just the Senate, but to a large degree the judiciary. In a addition, these low population states are able to stall basically any legislation, regardless of its relevancy to their state. As has been repeatedly pointed out, allowing any system that would permit 17% of the population to have the ability to completely shutdown any federal legislation is insane.

If the primary purpose of the senate is to allow low population states to protect themselves from large population states, then lets remove their ability to influence national policy unless they can demonstrate a direct, unique impact on their state. Lets remove from them their ability to influence the judiciary. If we are going to give them that level of representation, then lets significantly diminish their power to shut down the ability of the government to work for the country. Or, a much simpler solution, lets simply diminish the extent of the imbalance in their representation.

I'm not arguing that the concept of the senate is bad. I agree that their should be some checks in place for low population areas to be able to have some meaningful input. The only problem is the degree right now. Surely you would agree that if we had 26 states with 2 people in each state, it would be nonsense to permit those states to have equal representation in the senate to the other 24 with hundreds of millions of people, thus giving those 52 people the power to shutdown the governments ability to legislate. I realize this is extreme hyperbole, and that obviously they wouldn't form states with only 2 people, but I use it to simply illustrate that there is obviously some point of population disparity where equal representation for each state in the senate becomes irrational. I would argue we are well beyond that point right now.

 

[pmv]

Your first sentence is incorrect.

Care to say how? If your vote counts for more than the other guy's you have more power then they do.

 

[Starbuck1975]

And this is the exact problem with the function of the senate. A good system will continue to function with a few bad players. A bad system allows a small minority of bad players to completely shut it down.

This is a reflection of the geographic hyper partisanship times we live in. We can’t even have a honest conversation over why the Senate is dysfunctional. Mitch may be the straw that broke the camel, but only after years of various players eroding long standing norms.

One ironic aspect of the senate is the concept is to prevent the ignorant masses from enforcing mob rule. The problem is that the way the senate is designed, the least educated proportions of our society are the ones getting the greatest representation.

Ignorance is not a function of education.

 

[soulcougher73]

A single person can break any system. Show me what the replacement would look like and how it couldn't be corrupted.

That is a bad system if a single person can break it. And then to break it and have no consequences is also not a good system. Its one thing to argue its working as intended vs. its a bad design to begin with. I feel like you are arguing its working as intended, and that may be. But i disagree its a good system and that we couldnt come up with a better system today.

A true democracy/good system would never let an unpopular minority party take POS or control of any branch of the government. The system is broken that allows this to happen. I guess i shouldnt say its broken as if it was designed that way then its working as intended. The problem is that is just a shitty system.

 

[fskimospy]

That is a bad system if a single person can break it. And then to break it and have no consequences is also not a good system. Its one thing to argue its working as intended vs. its a bad design to begin with. I feel like you are arguing its working as intended, and that may be. But i disagree its a good system and that we couldnt come up with a better system today.

A true democracy/good system would never let an unpopular minority party take POS or control of any branch of the government. The system is broken that allows this to happen.

The idea that the system is working as intended is probably the most horrifying of all ideas.

Imagine that we are living in a system of democratic governance where the point was to make a situation where policies supported by 80-90% of people are regularly not enacted, where the courts can’t get staffed, where the government regularly shuts down, and where we are regularly confronted with the specter of a worldwide financial catastrophe due to debt default.

That’s the PLAN???

 

[SMOGZINN]

Uh, the senate has been functioning until recently and it did so with most of the same people. Mitch broke it.

I don't think it really matters, the system is now broken and I don't think we are going to be able to put that genie back in the bottle because having once been broken others will seek to do so again when they can get advantage from it.

The idea that the system is working as intended is probably the most horrifying of all ideas.

Imagine that we are living in a system of democratic governance where the point was to make a situation where policies supported by 80-90% of people are regularly not enacted, where the courts can’t get staffed, where the government regularly shuts down, and where we are regularly confronted with the specter of a worldwide financial catastrophe due to debt default.

That’s the PLAN???

Yes, I believe it was. The founding fathers believed that most people were idiots that could not be trusted to make decisions for themselves and needed someone more educated to make the hard decisions for them, and it appears that they were right.

 

[theeedude]

It's a systemic flaw like slavery was. The political system can't resolve those internally. Only under duress.

 

[mect]

Ignorance is not a function of education.

No, but I'd say there is a strong correlation.

 

[mect]

Yes, I believe it was. The founding fathers believed that most people were idiots that could not be trusted to make decisions for themselves and needed someone more educated to make the hard decisions for them, and it appears that they were right.

I don't necessarily disagree with this. But the solution to this is to elect representatives to write and pass legislation for us, not to give small sections of the population irrationally high levels of representation. This is why I think ballot measures as a general rule are stupid. The average person has in no way enough knowledge to make an informed decision on most ballot measures. This is why Brexit was a stupid vote to have. The people were completely unaware of what it even meant, let alone the ramifications. This is why the idea of term limits is stupid. Career politicians are a good thing as long as its a good politician. Who do you want designing your airplanes? A handyman that has a passing interest aeronautics? This is the point of having paid government representatives. It allows people to vote for a person that generally supports the the same ideas, but who has the working knowledge to pass these ideas in an appropriate form and is able to think about the ramifications of the legislation.

 

[hal2kilo]

No, there are supposed to be checks and balances in place to prevent one man from breaking the system. Take for example the POTUS. Trump is about as bad as a president can be. However, if the rest of government was functioning properly, this wouldn't matter. The same thing is true for the Senate. If the senate was functioning properly, McConnell wouldn't be the Majority Leader the way he is behaving. The reason this doesn't happen is because its not just one person, but it is a group representing a minority of this country, and they recognize that the only way for them to protect their power is to give unconditional support to McConnell, who similarly gives unconditional support to Trump.

The reason they are able to get away with this is the very topic of this thread. Because the Senate gives far to much representation and power to a minority group. And the impacts of this reach far beyond small states being able to simply protect themselves from larger states. They don't use their power to protect their own states, they use that power to protect their political party. Particularly where the senate is responsible for confirming judges, it allows low population states to control not just the Senate, but to a large degree the judiciary. In a addition, these low population states are able to stall basically any legislation, regardless of its relevancy to their state. As has been repeatedly pointed out, allowing any system that would permit 17% of the population to have the ability to completely shutdown any federal legislation is insane.

If the primary purpose of the senate is to allow low population states to protect themselves from large population states, then lets remove their ability to influence national policy unless they can demonstrate a direct, unique impact on their state. Lets remove from them their ability to influence the judiciary. If we are going to give them that level of representation, then lets significantly diminish their power to shut down the ability of the government to work for the country. Or, a much simpler solution, lets simply diminish the extent of the imbalance in their representation.

I'm not arguing that the concept of the senate is bad. I agree that their should be some checks in place for low population areas to be able to have some meaningful input. The only problem is the degree right now. Surely you would agree that if we had 26 states with 2 people in each state, it would be nonsense to permit those states to have equal representation in the senate to the other 24 with hundreds of millions of people, thus giving those 52 people the power to shutdown the governments ability to legislate. I realize this is extreme hyperbole, and that obviously they wouldn't form states with only 2 people, but I use it to simply illustrate that there is obviously some point of population disparity where equal representation for each state in the senate becomes irrational. I would argue we are well beyond that point right now.

Thank you.

 

[Sunburn74]

I still stand by my two basic positions
Either let the house override the Senate on any bill that passes on a 2/3 vote

Or break the US into 100 Senate voting districts and have senators more proportionally represent people (each senator represents and equal number of people)

 

[brandonbull]

You said senator represent states and representatives represent people. Therefore, by your logic, all three states have the some representation and voting power. You can't separate the idea of the people and the states in one argument, then turn right around and combine them in the next.

Senators were intended to represent each state's legislature, but now are selected via direct elections. Can you guess who else is selected via direct elections? If the the Senators were selected as intended, wouldn't the Senate split be 60-40? If we want to think of it in terms of population, it would be a significant % of the total population.

 

[fskimospy]

Senators were intended to represent each state's legislature, but now are selected via direct elections. Can you guess who else is selected via direct elections? If the the Senators were selected as intended, wouldn't the Senate split be 60-40? If we want to think of it in terms of population, it would be a significant % of the total population.

They are selected as intended, that's what constitutional amendments are for. Your argument is like saying black people are intended to be slaves by the Constitution.

They were, we decided it was bad, so we fixed it.

 

[piasabird]

You need to study US Government. There are two legislative branches. This is because every state has a right to be represented and larger populations also have a right for representation. The Senate gives each state 2 Senators so each state has a say in what goes on. Then the House uses a formula based on the US Census to set up districts based on population. Each branch of the legislature has to agree for Bills to be passed. This way the little guy is represented and the population is represented. The majority does not have a right to push the minority states around.

Perhaps we need a new formula for population to reduce the number of representatives.

 

[Genx87]

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.

Mark it down, a day I agree with ivwshane.

 

[Genx87]

Splitting a state requires the approval of that state's legislator. Those GOP state governments would never vote to split to give democrats more seats.

It would also require the other 49 states allowing it.

Article IV, Section 3.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

 

[Starbuck1975]

No, but I'd say there is a strong correlation.

It’s equally correlated to familiarity or experience.

 

[Squishy1]

It certainly needs fixing so the GOP have a larger majority.

 

[Zorba]

The states are independent and laws created that the states have to follow are created by people representing those states. You are basically telling states that they don't get any input because...well I have no idea what your reasoning is. I would think that if laws are passed at the federal level that states should get input on laws that will directly affect them, especially when a lot of those laws will have to be implemented by them directly.

All your other points are handled directly by the other body in Congress, the house or at the state level.

If you don't understand why we have states then I suggest you tell California to go fuck itself with its tougher than federal law clean air regulations. Maybe you could tell north Dakota they can't drill or frack for oil anymore. Perhaps you can tell Texans that you'll be taking their land for trumps new wall. Why not tell west Virginia they have to only use coal now? Who do these states think they are anyway?

Cities and counties also have laws that are created by people representing those cities/counties. Yet no state gives each county and/or city equal representation in its own legislator.

States are important for managing reasonable sized regions, but they are not independent countries and should be thought of more like counties than countries. I don't have any issue with states having laws above and beyond federal law, and being in charge of running their region. But there is no logical reason why these arbitrary setup regions should all have enough representation in the federal government. Yes, they should all have some minimum amount, but giving WY and DE the same representation as CA, FL and TX makes no sense.