Smaller population states are too powerful in the senate

[USAFRetired_Liberal]

The Senate already gives more power to smaller states like Wyoming by giving them the same amount of Senators than big states like California....having the filibuster increases their power even more...it’s like a double whammy

[lagomorph777]

1. Yup. Kill the Filibuster.

If we have to put Manchin's thumbs in a thumbscrew, whatever. We have to do it or democracy is dead.

[Politicalgolfer]

2. Same pattern in our state legislatures

The rural areas have way too much power & have a strangle hold on the cities that generate the state's wealth.

[Freddie]

4. Are you in PA?

Pennsyltucky has a stranglehold on the state legislature forever. It’s why we’re the only state in the NE with the minimum wage at $7.25. Why they AGAIN tried to pass a “heartbeat bill” because hating women is an essential part of being a Republican. If we get an R governor in 2022 this state will be worse than Mississippi.

[pwb]

3. Some Cities are more populated than Both the Dakotas?

Our Vermont would also be included. Among others. I agree.

[mwooldri]

5. Solution: Reform Congress.

Turn the US Senate into a revision chamber, and allow the US House under certain circumstances to override the Senate. The US House is somewhat more (small D) democratic than the US Senate. I'm modelling this after the UK parliament - where the House of Lords isn't even elected by the people. The House of Commons can override the Lord's with the Parliament Act.

[USAFRetired_Liberal]

7. I like that

So you are saying that the House will create and pass bills, and the senate would just revise and edit them before it goes to the POTUS desk to sign....but if the House doesn’t like the revisions then they could override the revisions....that sounds more reasonable, the only thing I would add is that there needs to be a time limit on the revisions.

[mwooldri]

14. The UK parliament has the "guillotine motion".

Basically when the guillotine motion is in effect, debate is limited and it goes to a vote. Bills can get passed very quickly this way. Of course the downside to all this parliamentary system is that a different party that comes into power can change the law pretty quickly, if it wants to.

[FBaggins]

15. It also isn't a more "democratic" alternative either

Many here complain that our system allows someone to advance to the presidency without garnering a majority of votes... and to control the legislative branch with even smaller constituencies...

... but in the UK you can gain even greater control (and without the minority-protecting aspects of the Senate) with far smaller numbers. It isn’t unheard of for a party to get more votes and yet have very little representation in the legislature.

[mwooldri]

16. You're telling me...

A card carrying Liberal Democrat (well I was card carrying at one point). John Cleese makes a good demonstration of this in a party political broadcast. The US system has two major parties and has the same first past the post voting system (for the most part) so one doesn't see the problems with this electoral system until one goes to a multi party system. Then you end up with the undemocratic system where the bloody Tories are in power.

[marie999]

13. It would take an amendment to the Constitution.

Do you think 67 senators would vote for it?

[FakeNoose]

6. Yes that's the basic unfairness of the Electoral College also

We've discussed it many times here on DU. We need to abolish the EC, or do a complete makeover on the Senate. (maybe both things)

Our Constitution was written during a different century, with a rural economy and different political priorities. Nowadays the Senate is not getting the job done, and it's a very expensive anchor on our progress.

[FBaggins]

8. That was by design

But the filibuster really doesn't make them any more powerful.

[USAFRetired_Liberal]

9. I know it was by design

And yes the filibuster gives them more power....it’s one thing for them to have the same equal vote as bigger states (as was by design)....and it wouldn’t be much of a problem if things were passed by simple majority...but it is another thing that their vote can hold up bills if it doesn’t get 60 (hence increasing their power)

[FBaggins]

11. No. The filibuster does not favor one state over another

When republicans controlled the Senate and Schumer was leading filibusters... his New York vote had exactly the same obstruction power that a small red state has in the current scenario. The filibuster gives any 41 senators the power to obstruct the majority. It doesn't matter what size state they come from.

[brooklynite]

10. No relationship...

Senators from Texas and Florida oppose eliminating the filibuster. Senators from NH, VT and RI support it.

[edhopper]

12. The 50/50 split in the Senate

has a popular vote split of 60%/40%. But the Republicans can control things by flipping one seat in 2022.

Minority rule.