Should the US Senate remain as it is?

[ColinC]

Just curious. Until 1913, all senators were not elected, but appointed by their state legislatures. Regardless of population, each state is given 2 senators which ends up overstating the representation of less populous states, and understating the representation of more populous sates. This is in contrast with the house of representatives, where decennial reapporitionment and redistricting nearly guarantees a slightly more proportional representation of their constituents. My question is: Should the US Senate be changed, and how?

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Constitution_Senate.htm

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

35 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	The Senate works fine as it is and should remain as it is.
	9 (26%)
	End bicameralism. The Senate should be abolished and the House of Reps should be the sole legislative house.
	3 (9%)
	The Senate should be reformed to be more representative of the populations they represent.
	23 (66%)
	Something else.
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[brooklynite]

1. Envision what you want; the Senate won't be changed.

You won't get 3/5 of the States (especially the small ones) to give up their Senate equality.

[ColinC]

3. It would clearly be an uphill battle. But I imagine not impossible.

[onenote]

5. How exactly would it be possible.

The underlying premise is that certain states have too much power under the current structure. Why would any of those states agree to give up their power?

[ColinC]

7. Because it is the right thing to do.

And most people could probably come to terms with that idea when pressed. But again, your point would make it damn near impossible at least in the current environment. Uphill battle. Maybe even a really, really steep uphill battle. But possible nonetheless.

[JI7]

14. They don't even support making it fair for every eligible voter to vote

[ColinC]

15. Not the current ones, no.

But alas, I remain hopeful that can change. Along with other issues like the EC and Senate Reform

[brooklynite]

17. Why is it the right thing to do?

Seriously, you'd have to answer that question. And it's not as simple as "we should have proportional representation". We DO have that: in the House. The Senate arguably serves a different function. You'll need to explain why that second function isn't useful.

[ColinC]

19. Because it is undemocratic.

Overriding the majority will far more often than should be the case.

[Polybius]

51. "Because it is the right thing to do"

That's the funniest thing I've heard here in weeks. Only a foolish state would give up its power because you think it's right. What's in it for them?

[ColinC]

53. Well that's funny.

Because many smaller states have given up their power through getting on board the electoral college pact in favor of the majority vote. They give up their power in a big way in choosing the president because they argue it isn't right for their state to override the will of the majority.

The same argument has been had in the senate as well.

Many prominent statesmen including the late John Dingell have advocated for abolishing the senate, and there is already a constitutional amendment proposed to do doing so.

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/4/18125539/john-dingell-abolish-senate

[Polybius]

55. The Electoral College was a compromise though

It was negotiated through the Founding Fathers, primarily Hamilton.

Would you support a parliamentary system instead, perhaps with a Prime Minister? Or do you want to abolish it and replace it with nothing?

[ColinC]

56. So was the senate. From the late John Dingell.

The Great Compromise, as it was called when it was adopted by the Constitution’s Framers, required that all states, big and small, have two senators. The idea that Rhode Island needed two U.S. senators to protect itself from being bullied by Massachusetts emerged under a system that governed only 4 million Americans.

Today, in a nation of more than 325 million and 37 additional states, not only is that structure antiquated, it’s downright dangerous. California has almost 40 million people, while the 20 smallest states have a combined population totaling less than that. Yet because of an 18th-century political deal, those 20 states have 40 senators, while California has just two. These sparsely populated, usually conservative states can block legislation supported by a majority of the American people. That’s just plain crazy.

[Polybius]

58. So which would you support?

Abolishing it and replacing it with nothing, or having a parliamentary system Prime Minister? It seems fair.

[ColinC]

60. I actually don't think we should abolish it. But am sympathetic to arguments for doing so

I assume the original idea was unicameral separate from the federal government. Same as now but without the senate.

If we abolished the Senate, I would go with that. But even I think that it shouldn't be abolished outright. Reform towards reducing it's power in favor of the house would be best IMHO.

[ColinC]

66. Reading further with Dingell's proposal is this:

There is a solution, however, that could gain immediate popular support: Abolish the Senate. At a minimum, combine the two chambers into one, and the problem will be solved. It will take a national movement, starting at the grassroots level, and will require massive organizing, strategic voting, and strong leadership over the course of a generation. But it has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? “Abolish the Senate.” I’m having blue caps printed up with that slogan right now. They will be made in America.

But yeah it would still be unicameral apparently...

[Polybius]

67. Hmm, that would add 100 people to the House

Two from every state. That's a great suggestion.

[ColinC]

69. Which begs the question

Last edited Sat Jan 8, 2022, 05:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Expand the house chamber or keep them in the senate chamber?

I don't disagree with expanding the house, but doing so in a non proportional way does bother me.

[Celerity]

37. It certainly will if there is a dissolution of the union of the States, with the Senate itself being

but one of multiple, potentially fatal long wave constitutional flaws that may well synergistically combine to culminate in just such a dissolution.

[brooklynite]

40. That won't happen either.

[Celerity]

42. It most certainly could. nt

[brooklynite]

44. This is not the 1800s...

States don't have the same level of autonomy (they certainly don't have their own armies like they used to) and the economic structure of the country is too intertwined.

[AllaN01Bear]

2. yes the senate should be reformed .

[Dial H For Hero]

4. Not going to happen. Period.

[sarisataka]

6. The Senate representation

Has nothing to do with a state's population and was never intended to.

As for changing the Senate, there is a 0.00% chance of getting all 50 states to agree to an Amendment changing the representation so any discussion is for philosophical purposes only.

[ColinC]

8. Well 38 states are needed.

But that doesn't change the difficulty too much.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

16. It would require all 50 states to agree

Article 5 contains 2 clauses that limits what can be amended in the Constitution, the first had sunset provision and expired in 1808, the 2nd one does not and is still in effect. It states that "that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

It's been speculated that we could amend Article 5 and remove that clause, then amend the Constitution to change the Senate apportionment, but that's not guaranteed to work.

[ColinC]

18. Thanks! I didn't know that.

Again whether we need 38 or 50 states, the other poster's point pretty much stands. It is very, very difficult to get to happen. I just argue that it is a .01% chance. Not .00%.

[Polybius]

54. Yes, but there's one other way around it (although equally unlikely)

A Constitutional Convention.

[MineralMan]

9. Given the extreme difficulty of amending the Constitution,

polls like this one don't make much sense, really. It will not happen. So, what I think is irrelevant.

[ColinC]

10. I think it's good to think about still. Even if nothing changes.

Some folks forget how unrepresentative the Senate is and could use the reminder. I think it could change sometime in the next couple hundred years. But not if nobody talks about it.

[MineralMan]

11. I think it is better to think about things that can actually happen.

For now, maybe we could think about how to preserve our democracy at all.

Truly.

[ColinC]

12. If we don't think about it, it cannot happen.

And if it does not happen, and our society continues to become more undemocratic vs more democratic and the institutions fail to change with the times -they will fail. Pondering different ways to make our government more vs less representative at a time when there is a full fledged effort to eradicate our democracy can only help IMHO.

[MineralMan]

13. Well, OK, then.

You go ahead and think about it.

[dwayneb]

82. It's always good to have open discussions - go read your Franklin and Washington

Recently I've been reading what our founders had to say and the warning they had about the road ahead for all of us.

Now that I am an old geezer I have realized that 250 years is not really that long ago, that we are still a young country.

Franklin and Washington and the others would be rolling over in their graves if they observed that we refused ot even discuss modifying our Constitution and structure of government to protect our freedoms.

While it is not likely this will change anytime soon it should always be a topic of discussion.

But first we have to survive the attack from the Fascist Right which is the immediate threat. If we don't survive that battle, then this discussion in moot.

[forthemiddle]

39. The Senate is NOT unrepresentative!

From the beginning the Senate was NEVER meant to represent the people of the State. It was constructed to represent the interests of the States themselves. Period, end of story.
Our Country is a union of the States, not of the people.
Its purpose is the protect the interests of the State.
If we want to change that we have to fundamentally change our Constitution.

[Johonny]

31. I disagree

The discussion is 200 years over due. It should be mentioned at every opportunity. The Senate is so dysfunctional and unrepresentative that it will lead to the collapse of the government. It's only a matter of time.

[Voltaire2]

34. Given that it is quite likely that this republic

is going to implode, imagining what a new government would look like is a good idea and quite relevant.

[MineralMan]

35. I prefer to consider things that can actually be accomplished now to

prevent that implosion. It always seems to me that working toward what can be done is more useful than talking about things that cannot.

[ColinC]

48. I just don't see why we can't do both

[MineralMan]

49. But, you see, we are not doing both, neither as individuals, nor

as a society. If we were, we would be in a far better situation and we wouldn't have had a buffoonish fascist as President for four years.

People love to dream about things, partly because dreaming takes no effort. Actually doing stuff is hard work.

[ColinC]

52. Well that isn't true at all.

Folks have been proposing ways to change the senate in prominent settings like talk shows, books, etc. However, changing the electoral college is far more feasible, and we are already just about ten states away from nullifying the electoral college vote with electoral college pact in favor of the majority vote instead. Also, the discussions of bringing in new states like Puerto Rican and dc continue to be discussed. We also cannot discount the small changes that are being vigorously discussed in the senate about the fillibuster and the major changes in itself that brings.

We can think big while also getting small things done that make a big difference. We have been doing it for quite a while even if some folks didn't notice.

The late John Dingell: Abolish the Senate:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/12/4/18125539/john-dingell-abolish-senate

[Demsrule86]

74. Talk, talk and more talk. There is no way to do it. The filibuster is not going anywhere...

The states are not ten votes away from nullifying the electoral college first of all. The interstate vote thing will never pass court muster. It is an end-run around the constitution. The only way to end the electoral college is by a constitutional amendment that will never be ratified (small states are a hard no) even if we ever had the votes to begin the process which I believe is unlikely to happen.

[ColinC]

76. The fillibuster only needs two more senate votes.

That will likely happen as soon as there are 51 votes to do it. I assume that if the Democrats win 52 votes next year, the fillibuster will be abolished. Or if the Republicans get another trifecta in 2024, they will also likely abolish it.

The EC pact is about 2/3rds of the way of effectively getting rid of the electoral college because of the number of states that have passed and signed legislation or voted on referendums to do so.

This is not just talk. There have been concerted efforts in getting people on board with doing all of these things, and there have been a number influential people who signed into them.

Just because it takes a long time to get these things done, doesn't mean it is impossible. It just means it takes a stronger effort for it to happen. And if any of it does, it will be because of the so called "time wasters" who fought diligently to make the impossible happen.

[Demsrule86]

77. You are assuming that all other Democrats are on board...not sure if that is true...in any case

look at the maps getting two seats and holding what we got will be tough this year.

[ColinC]

80. If we don't, then Republicans will likely be first to end the fillibuster

And it will be very, very bad.

[Demsrule86]

83. And? If the votes are not there the votes are not there.

[ColinC]

85. Being 90% of the way there and being impossible are two completely things.

[Demsrule86]

87. As we speak the votes are not there...and I can't see where they come from.

As my Daddy used to say...' almost only counts in horseshoes.'

[Demsrule86]

84. Changing the electoral college requires a constitutional amendment...and that is not possible.

[ColinC]

86. Not true. The EC compact only requires a majority of electoral votes to sign on

States have the authority to designate their electoral college votes in however way they can. States individually giving their votes to the popular vote winner when there is a majority of electoral college votes on board will work just as effectively as a constitutional amendment.

[Demsrule86]

88. The EC compact won't pass a court challange in my view. And even if it did...any state could

change it. It won't work.

[ColinC]

89. That is still speculation that the current rules won't stand.

For this purpose. And if the current rules don't stand, it will open up a can of worms that could undermine the authority that states have in the constitution, which I imagine even conservative courts won't want to mess with.
Either way, it is still a huge step in the right direction given that a substantial number of big states and small states have signed on to ceding their power in trying to eliminate the electoral college.

[2naSalit]

20. Add some states.

[ColinC]

22. That would definitely help!

[maxsolomon]

24. It would still be unfair

Unless larger states break in to pieces the size of WY or VT. And then it makes the Senate pointless.

This is a structural flaw, probably the biggest one, in the Constitution.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

32. And/or combine some.

How about just one big Dakota?
Wytanna?

[A HERETIC I AM]

61. This!

There is a movement for the creation of a large, mostly white ethno-state combining eastern Oregon and Washington with Idaho.

Fine, the scaredy white folks can have their conservative utopia. They get 2 senators and the appropriate number of Representatives

Then combine the Dakotas and combine Montana and Wyoming.

Next, add statehood to DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands and American Samoa, each with 2 senators and the appropriate number of reps.

The combined population of Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas is about 13,150,000. 16 Senators.

The population of the greater LA metroplex is over 18 million.

2 senators.

It is seriously fucked up.

[meadowlander]

21. Mixed member proportional

Everyone gets to vote for both a senator and a party. Their senator can win by first past the post but the total number of senators is filled in with party list senators so that the percentage of senators reflects the percentage of the overall population that voted for that party. Any party that gets at least 5% of the overall vote gets at least one senator.

So let's say I live in New Jersey. I can vote for the Democratic party senator who is most likely to win but also vote for the green or socialist party. My Democratic senator gets in with 52% of the vote and then if the green or socialist party gets at least 5% of the party vote, the total number of senators is filled in with the person on the top of that party's list.

Instead of 100 senators you would have 130ish senators. 100 are directly elected and 30ish are appointed off lists so that the senate reflects the party percentage in the general population.

This makes it easier to have multiple parties and harder for any one party to ignore part of its constituency because the only alternative is to vote for someone completely unpalatable from the other party. So parties need to build coalitions and listen to all of the parts of the coalition.

It would break the two-party deadlock in the Senate where no-one is getting anything that they want because it reduces the threat of someone being primaried and losing their seat if they vote their conscience instead of the party line. In the present situation, we could guarantee someone like Susan Collins, Linda Murkowski or even Liz Cheney a place on the Democratic list if they changed parties and then even if they were primaried and lost in their states they could keep their senate seats.

And it would get rid of the impact of population on the overall makeup of the Senate because this would reflect the national party vote instead of two per state regardless of relative population size.

This is the model used in the two strongest democracies today - Germany and New Zealand.

[ColinC]

23. Interesting!!

I like it.

[Wounded Bear]

25. Unrealistic to push a change to the makeup of the Senate...

What's needed is a drastic change to the Senate rules.

[Hangingon]

26. Giving each state equal representation I. The Senate...

Offsets the strength of States with larger representation in the House. One of the checks and balances.

[ColinC]

28. I thought in a democracy the majority should rule

The offset you describe is often a group of people representing a minority of voters overriding the will of the majority.

[brooklynite]

41. And I counter with: protect against the tyranny of the majority.

[ColinC]

47. And the tyranny of the minority is better?

Preventing common sense legislation from passing so that states that represent a minority of voters can actually tyrannize their populations?

[Hangingon]

70. No an offsetting force.

Come up with acceptable compromise. Something like Manchin.

[ColinC]

71. ?

[Hangingon]

78. As I expected, there is no possibility of compromise¡

[Emile]

27. I like to see our US Territories get statehood.

[marie999]

29. No, it was specifically set up to have 2 Houses. One by population and one by states.

I think that a change would not be good for the country. There needs to be changes in the way the Senate operates. It seems that people think that only states with smaller populations would be against it, but I think some of the larger states would also be against it. That is even if it could possibly be done with 38 states instead of all 50.

[ColinC]

30. It's an incredibly tall order no matter how you stack it.

That is absolutely for sure.

[Voltaire2]

33. The Senate should be rendered irrelevant.

It should become an advisory only body or abolished entirely. It is an anti democratic relic of our slave economy past.

[brooklynite]

65. If we didn't have the Senate, then Democrats would have controlled congress for only

four years out of the last 26.

[myohmy2]

36. end it...

...what useful purpose does it serve other than to give low populated dip-shit states equal footing with the populated states...

...it's an undemocratic institution bastardized even further by the filibuster...

...dump it, outside of the improvement we'd never know the difference...

...

[In It to Win It]

38. Which is easier, amending the Constitution or convincing people to vote for Dems?

[jcgoldie]

43. The question is MOOT

Not going to happen.

[Trailrider1951]

45. The senate is ok the way it is, except: GET RID OF THE DAMNED FILLIBUSTER!

A simple majority should be all that's necessary to bring legislation to a vote.

[MurrayDelph]

46. First step is to add for more senators

Two from DC, and two from Puerto Rico.

[Polybius]

50. Yes, go back to pre-1913 conditions

Abolish the 17th Amendment.

[brooklynite]

57. Conservatives love that idea...why trust voters?

[Polybius]

59. Because the Founding Fathers didn't want us to vote for Senators

I trust them.

[brooklynite]

62. The founding fathers had other ideas as well.....

Not voting for President.

Slavery.

nb: repeal the 17th Amendment and you lose:
Maggie Hassan
Jean Shaheen
Bernie Sanders
Sherrod Brown
Jon Tester
Mark Kelly
Raphael Warnock
Jon Ossof
Tammy Baldwin

[Polybius]

63. Many wanted slavery to be abolished at the start of the Union

Unfortunately, they couldn't get the Southern states to join if slavery was illegal from the start.

[brooklynite]

64. And the founding fathers decided to allow it; along with equal representation in the Senate

Either you trust the Founding Fathers or you don't.

[Polybius]

68. I trust that they had little choice

Either we get a US or not was their choice.

[Demsrule86]

75. That is a hard no for me...and given the GOP strength in state houses, we would

be screwed. Moving away from voting is not nor ever will be the answer.

[Demsrule86]

72. Of course it should be reformed. It doesn't work well anymore. However, it won't happen so there

is little point in even trying because we don't have the votes...a deal should have been made on BBB...but the broken Senate couldn't get it done.

[ForgedCrank]

73. It is my opinion that

the circular rule of politics and power should always be the primary consideration. Changing rules, law or policy for advantage can hurt just as bad (or more) in the end.
I see it like this: the power I gain by setting new rules or guidelines are equally given to my opponent. We are plying with fire in promoting such things.

[Meowmee]

79. It should not be based on population obviously

Last edited Tue Jan 11, 2022, 01:44 PM - Edit history (1)

I think I was confused when I wrote this but meant that low population states should not have an equal number of senators as larger population states. So maybe really it should be- increase senators for larger population states. Or just modify the senate and the presidency. Go to a parliamentary type system instead where there is no one branch which can dominate and certainly no one person such as a president who can have too much power.

[PufPuf23]

81. Split large population states, add DC and Puerto Rico as States, and end filibuster would preserve

the original intent of the Senate and improve representative democracy at the State and Federal level.

Ending the filibuster is the most practical now, splitting states would be much more involved. Adding DC and Puerto Rico is somewhat in between as far as implementation and las a leg up politically now.

The Senate would be expanded as each split State would add Senators.

I would propose that California and Texas be split into 3 states and New York and Florida be split into two States.

The split States and new States would add 16 Senators to the Senate.