Current Events > Former Congressman: abolish the Senate

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/john-dingell-how-restore-faith-government/577222/

The end of minority rule in our legislative and executive branches. The Great Compromise, as it was called when it was adopted by the Constitutions 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, its 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. Thats just plain crazy.

The math is even starker when you look at places like Wyoming and Vermont, each of which has fewer people in the entire state (575,000 and 625,000, respectively) than does the Twelfth Congressional District of Michigan, which I last represented and whose more than 700,000 residents are now in the hands of my wife, Debbie. She fights her heart out for them every single day. Yet her efforts are often stymied simply because it is understood that even should a good bill make it through the hyper-partisan House, it will die a quiet death in the Senate because of the disproportionate influence of small states.

With my own eyes, Ive watched in horror and increasing anger as that imbalance in power has become the primary cause of our national legislative paralysis. In primaries, the vocal rump of a minority of obnoxious asses can hold the entire country hostage to extremist views. This insanity has sent true public servants fleeing for the exits. The Electoral College has the same structural flaw. Along with 337 of my colleagues, I voted in 1969 to amend the Constitution to abolish it. Twice in the past 18 years, weve seen the loser of the popular vote become president through the Electoral College formula, which gives that same disproportionate weight to small states, each of which gets two automatic votes for its two senators.

My friend Norm Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, sees a demographic shift coming that will effectively transform us into two countries. He tells me that in 2050, 70 percent of Americans will be living in just 15 states. That 70 percent will then have 30 senators, and the remaining 30 percent of the people, mainly those living in the smallest and poorest states, will have 70 senators.

How do we fix this? Practically speaking, it will be very difficult, given the specific constitutional protection granted these small states to veto any threat to their outsize influence.

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, doesnt it? Abolish the Senate. Im having blue caps printed up with that slogan right now. They will be made in America.

There's some other shit in this piece, some of which makes me roll my eyes, but when he's right, he's right
---

The Senate isn't what's inherently wrong with the US.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

The Senate isn't what's inherently wrong with the US.

I mean, correct, but we would still do well to get rid of it.
---

Or we could just have oversight for it.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Or we could just have oversight for it.

How so?
---

Antifar posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

The Senate isn't what's inherently wrong with the US.

I mean, correct, but we would still do well to get rid of it.

Two chambers have saved us from a lot of shit legislation that passes one but can't pass the other.
---

We really need to just remove the EC which favors the small states in presidency.

I don't mind the smaller population states having a section on congress where they have more power. But they don't need both. Though we really need to up the number of Representatives in the house. The current number hasn't been adjusted over a few decades.
---

If DC and PR werent continually denied statehood the problem would be less pronounced
---

Ambience posted...

Two chambers have saved us from a lot of shit legislation that passes one but can't pass the other.

And everything is fine and people generally love the state of things today
---

I like the electoral college as a concept but proportional distribution of the votes based on popular vote in each state is way more reasonable than the winner takes all dog shit we have now.
---

Antifar posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Or we could just have oversight for it.

How so?

I don't have any great ideas myself, but since we are talking about things that will never happen anyway, make every law public and easily accessible and put in lay terms, have them available to be voted down at any time, have a list of what any single lawmaker has done publicly available and easily accessible, have them able to be voted out at any time.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

We really need to just remove the EC which favors the small states in presidency.

I don't mind the smaller population states having a section on congress where they have more power. But they don't need both. Though we really need to up the number of Representatives in the house. The current number hasn't been adjusted over a few decades.

Yeah. Honestly I can't help but feel that Trump is having an unusually large amount of problems, more so than any other recent president, specifically because the people don't want him to be president. You can ignore their votes but you can't ignore their voices. You can't ignore the fact that they're literally everywhere, outnumber his supporters by the millions, and will do everything they can to sabotage him.
---

Our government is unfortunately massively resistant to change just in how it was set up, which is good for things like human/civil rights and bad for anything that actually needs to keep with the times.
---

At the very least, Id like to see the electoral college abolished. The adage that every vote counts is BS for the presidential election. Your vote matters if you live in a swing state. If you live in a state that heavily leans one way or another, then vote all you want - your states electoral votes are pretty much predetermined.
---

Intro2Logic posted...

Ambience posted...

Two chambers have saved us from a lot of shit legislation that passes one but can't pass the other.

And everything is fine and people generally love the state of things today

What? I never said that, only that having two chambers has protected America from extreme legislation from both sides. Just like the attempted Obamacare repeal, it's a flawed system, but before just dismantling it, you need something in place.
---

Ex-Kefiroth posted...

Also, expand the House. A single house district represents far too many people.

If you merged the senate into the house, everyone would get 3 reps minimum.
---

Goats posted...

So. It's treason then.
*flips lightsaber on and leaps at Antifar letting loose a terrible roar.*
solrock

haha nice
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

The Senate isn't what's inherently wrong with the US.

i mean, it isn't ALL of what's inherently wrong with the US, but it's a huge part of it.

perhaps california should split into a dozen states. perhaps we should force the dakotas, virginias, carolinas, and everything bordering wyoming to merge into one state.

but broadly, the largest population ratio in the US at the time of our founding was 20:1 (South Carolina:Virginia), and was a major exception to the trend. Today it's 80:1, and about a two dozen states have ratios comparable to that of SC. also SC only had the ratio it did because slaves weren't being counted fully.

The Popo posted...

At the very least, Id like to see the electoral college abolished. The adage that every vote counts is BS for the presidential election. Your vote matters if you live in a swing state. If you live in a state that heavily leans one way or another, then vote all you want - your states electoral votes are pretty much predetermined.

this is mostly a function of the lack of proportional EC distribution, which was decided because someone got high as shit with their cherokee friends when writing amendment XII. but also of the fact that we stopped expanding the house, and kept EC size limited, gradually expanding the relative voting power of small states for the presidency.
---

Imagine not advocating for the dissolution of the federal government
---

Also, I agree that the Senate is archaic and needs to go. Expand the house, dissolve the Senate.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6zSmtxzwjM" data-time="
---

The senate has served no particularly useful purpose since the 17th amendment was ratified. It's basically just another House, but with "representatives" who are in there three times as long, and with hilariously disproportionate representation.

This is going to be one of those rare times when I agree with Antifar.

Darkman124 posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

The Senate isn't what's inherently wrong with the US.

i mean, it isn't ALL of what's inherently wrong with the US, but it's a huge part of it.

perhaps california should split into a dozen states. perhaps we should force the dakotas, virginias, carolinas, and everything bordering kansas to merge into one state.

but broadly, the largest population ratio in the US at the time of our founding was 20:1 (South Carolina:Virginia), and was a major exception to the trend. Today it's 80:1, and about a two dozen states have ratios comparable to that of SC. also SC only had the ratio it did because slaves weren't being counted fully.

The Popo posted...

At the very least, Id like to see the electoral college abolished. The adage that every vote counts is BS for the presidential election. Your vote matters if you live in a swing state. If you live in a state that heavily leans one way or another, then vote all you want - your states electoral votes are pretty much predetermined.

this is mostly a function of the lack of proportional EC distribution, which was decided because someone got high as shit with their cherokee friends when writing amendment XII.

Perhaps we should force electoral candidates to at least meet a minimum set of requirements, some which are permanent, some which can be updated with the times. For example, maybe white supremacists can never be in office. Also maybe someone shouldn't be able to make legislation on something scientific without major peer reviewed scientific backing.
---

The structure of US government is great

We just need term limits.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Perhaps we should force electoral candidates to at least meet a minimum set of requirements, some which are permanent, some which can be updated with the times. For example, maybe white supremacists can never be in office. Also maybe someone shouldn't be able to make legislation on something scientific without major peer reviewed scientific backing.

seems hard to enact

granted so do my ideas

idk i'd rather let the voters pick what makes sense and what doesn't

the trouble is our system doesn't do that, it favors whoever exploits it better rather than who appeals to voters

republicans seem to think that's ok because "fuck california"
---

Darkman124 posted...

the trouble is our system doesn't do that, it favors whoever exploits it better rather than who appeals to voters

Any system will always do that so long as its resistant to change.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Also maybe someone shouldn't be able to make legislation on something scientific without major peer reviewed scientific backing.

I think your heart is in the right place, but I imagine this will lead to their never being any legislation that could be even remotely construed as scientific.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Perhaps we should force electoral candidates to at least meet a minimum set of requirements, some which are permanent, some which can be updated with the times. For example, maybe white supremacists can never be in office. Also maybe someone shouldn't be able to make legislation on something scientific without major peer reviewed scientific backing.

This is what's known as a meritocracy and while it looks good on paper, it has historically produced results far worse than even communism because of how vulnerable to corruption the system is. Can you imagine living in this society when that "vaccines cause autism" paper was published?
---

Anteaterking posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Also maybe someone shouldn't be able to make legislation on something scientific without major peer reviewed scientific backing.

I think your heart is in the right place, but I imagine this will lead to their never being any legislation that could be even remotely construed as scientific.

And when would it be better to have guesswork legislation on something unknown as opposed to no law at all?
---

he's not wrong

better states are more important and should have more say
---

Change the Senate so everything actually requires like 60 or 65 votes to pass rather than just a majority.

Change Supreme Court picks to require near-unanimous approval.

They'll learn to actually work together.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Perhaps we should force electoral candidates to at least meet a minimum set of requirements, some which are permanent, some which can be updated with the times. For example, maybe white supremacists can never be in office. Also maybe someone shouldn't be able to make legislation on something scientific without major peer reviewed scientific backing.

This is what's known as a meritocracy and while it looks good on paper, it has historically produced results far worse than even communism because of how vulnerable to corruption the system is. Can you imagine living in this society when that "vaccines cause autism" paper was published?

Then keep it simple. All candidates are required to hold civil and human rights above all else. That's it.
---

spudger posted...

he's not wrong

better states are more important and should have more say

It's sad that there are people who seriously believe this.
---

Bio1590 posted...

They'll learn to actually work together.

That doesn't mean what they produce will be good. No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, and the Iraq War all saw bipartisan approval.
---

spudger posted...

he's not wrong

better states are more important and should have more say

Maybe instead of determining representation by population, we should determine it by the GDP of the state.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

spudger posted...

he's not wrong

better states are more important and should have more say

It's sad that there are people who seriously believe this.

No it's not. Why should a bunch of assbackwards places that want to teach religion in public schools, believe it should be illegal to be gay and want to decide what to do with women's bodies control the nation in which they are a minority?
---

I am the Senate
---

Ambience posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

spudger posted...

he's not wrong

better states are more important and should have more say

It's sad that there are people who seriously believe this.

No it's not. Why should a bunch of assbackwards places that want to teach religion in public schools, believe it should be illegal to be gay and want to decide what to do with women's bodies control the nation in which they are a minority?

Oh I dunno, maybe to protect the rest of the country from oppressive bigots like yourself?

Ambience posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

spudger posted...

he's not wrong

better states are more important and should have more say

It's sad that there are people who seriously believe this.

No it's not. Why should a bunch of assbackwards places that want to teach religion in public schools, believe it should be illegal to be gay and want to decide what to do with women's bodies control the nation in which they are a minority?

Giving the house more power would directly lend itself to this exact problem.
---

He wouldn't be saying this shit if democrats had a stronghold of the senate
---

Annihilated posted...

Ambience posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

spudger posted...

he's not wrong

better states are more important and should have more say

It's sad that there are people who seriously believe this.

No it's not. Why should a bunch of assbackwards places that want to teach religion in public schools, believe it should be illegal to be gay and want to decide what to do with women's bodies control the nation in which they are a minority?

Oh I dunno, maybe to protect the rest of the country from oppressive bigots like yourself?

In doing so we are putting oppressive bigots in power though.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

He wouldn't be saying this shit if democrats had a stronghold of the senate

Yeah he would, probably.
---

Annihilated posted...

Ambience posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

spudger posted...

he's not wrong

better states are more important and should have more say

It's sad that there are people who seriously believe this.

No it's not. Why should a bunch of assbackwards places that want to teach religion in public schools, believe it should be illegal to be gay and want to decide what to do with women's bodies control the nation in which they are a minority?

Oh I dunno, maybe to protect the rest of the country from oppressive bigots like yourself?

How is what I said being bigoted? There are states that believe in all that backwards crap.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Giving the house more power would directly lend itself to this exact problem.

um what

giving the house more power would prevent small states with values contrary to those of the average american from dictating federal policy
---

The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.
---