Should the US Senate remain as it is?

[dutch508]

Star Member ColinC (4,103 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216223678

Should the US Senate remain as it is?

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?

 

28 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
The Senate works fine as it is and should remain as it is.
3 (11%)
End bicameralism. The Senate should be abolished and the House of Reps should be the sole legislative house.
1 (4%)
The Senate should be reformed to be more representative of the populations they represent.
22 (79%)
Something else.
2 (7%)
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.

 

Star Member ColinC (4,103 posts)

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.

Star Member brooklynite (74,849 posts)

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.

 

Star Member ColinC (4,103 posts)

19. Because it is undemocratic.

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

 

Star Member sarisataka (13,107 posts)

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.

Star Member ColinC (4,103 posts)

8. Well 38 states are needed.

But that doesn't change the difficulty too much.

DetroitLegalBeagle (937 posts)

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.

Star Member ColinC (4,103 posts)

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.

 

[DLR Pyro]

I see they're at their favorite past time again...

[SVPete]

 

Star Member brooklynite (74,849 posts)

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.

             We don't get our waaaayyyyyy!!!             Waaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!            

[franksolich]

Yawn.

If the Republicans win the House later this year, and in the unlikely event the Senate remains split at 50-50, the primitives are suddenly going to get religion.

[FlaGator]

Originally the House of Representatives represented the people living in the state, the Senators in the Senate represented the State's government so the population was not considered a factor in the number of members in the Senate. Two Senators represent a state regardless of the population. I would actually like to see the Senate go back to being an appointed position.

[Ralph Wiggum]

Originally the House of Representatives represented the people living in the state, the Senators in the Senate represented the State's government so the population was not considered a factor in the number of members in the Senate. Two Senators represent a state regardless of the population. I would actually like to see the Senate go back to being an appointed position.

As you elucidated, there is a balance of power which is incredibly important.  The United States of America was designed to prevent fascism and oppression by whatever party was in power at the time.  And it was also meant to represent that back in "the old days" that New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, etc. didn't dictate how the country was meant to be governed.  Those of us in "flyover" states need a semblance of representation or we'd never agree to be part of a such a dictatorship.

Conveniently enough, most libs never learned these basic historical facts.  Even though they claim to be the "smartest discussion board on the internet".

[Zathras]

Star Member ColinC (4,103 posts)

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

Ohh DUmbass. Thinking isn't your strong suit is it. Even if you do think about it it still won't happen. The only thing that will happen is you'll notice a burning smell just before setting off every smoke detector triggered by your "thinking".

[SVPete]

Star Member ColinC (4,103 posts)

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