Current Events > Former Congressman: abolish the Senate

(+) Yeah! (+)

Darkman124 posted...

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

That's only assuming that representation is always kept distributed by population centers. No gerrymandering.
---

He sounds pretty self-serving. He wants his, or rather his wife's or his state's, legislation to hold more sway and to take away the representation of the poorer, smaller states.

If you want to turn red states blue, or purple, then start moving to those states in large numbers. Stop concentrating in California and other strictly blue states. Until then, you'll just have to deal with smaller red states having some equivalent say in the senate.
---

Are people really so stupid as to think that republicans will never again hold a majority in the house when they call for something like this? I swear, people are all too willing to throw away checks and balances and then pikachu face when the opposing party takes power and uses those same new powers to do shit they don't want.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Are people really so stupid as to think that republicans will never again hold a majority in the house when they call for something like this?

The House can't legislate away the Senate. This sort of thing would require 38 states to ratify a constitutional amendment.
Both parties would strongly oppose such an amendment anyway.

P4wn4g3 posted...

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

I'm saying the provision would be used to prevent legitimate bills that could be construed as "science related", not just to prevent bad bills.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Are people really so stupid as to think that republicans will never again hold a majority in the house when they call for something like this?

The House can't legislate away the Senate. This sort of thing would require 38 states to ratify a constitutional amendment.

Obviously it's never going to happen. I get that any calls to eliminate the senate are pointless grandstanding, but it's the kind where if the person took even 10 seconds to think about what they were actually saying they'd be horrified at the consequences.
---

Anteaterking posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

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

I'm saying the provision would be used to prevent legitimate bills that could be construed as "science related", not just to prevent bad bills.

Yeah, if something like that were to be enacted some exact limits would have to be put on its scope.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Obviously it's never going to happen

It's already happened 17 times
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Obviously it's never going to happen

It's already happened 17 times

Questionmarktarius posted...

The House can't legislate away the Senate.

---

s0nicfan posted...

Are people really so stupid as to think that republicans will never again hold a majority in the house when they call for something like this?

It's not about eliminating Republicans from power. It's about eliminating an institution that allows a small (and shrinking) fraction of the population to control the legislative process.

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.

That's an undemocratic (small d), untenable situation.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

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.

The most successful hedgefund in the world, Bridgewater Associates, champions idea meritocracy. So to your example, they could wait for a couple other 3rd party groups to confirm that doctor's findings on vaccine's effect on autism. In fact, this wait, and see if others can replicate its effect is a conventional process; the last time we had a big scientific event that turned out to be false was that one particle that seemingly traveled faster than the speed of light.
---

Antifar posted...

That's an undemocratic (small d), untenable situation.

Our entire government is explicitly set up to prevent tyranny of the majority. Either you fail to understand that, or actively desire it. Both are bad.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Our entire government is explicitly set up to prevent tyranny of the majority.

And in doing so, enables the tyranny of the minority. That is not preferable!
---

Antifar posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Our entire government is explicitly set up to prevent tyranny of the majority.

And in doing so, enables the tyranny of the minority.

Cock-blocking dumbass legislation is not tyranny.

s0nicfan posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Obviously it's never going to happen

It's already happened 17 times

Questionmarktarius posted...

This sort of thing would require 38 states to ratify a constitutional amendment.

Fixed
---

Good job guys weve almost figured out how to fix our govt

Antifar posted...

That's an undemocratic (small d), untenable situation.

Again this goes back to restructuring the senate, not abolishing it. A considerable number of laws are better never passing. Currently anything related to computers is in that boat.
---

Antifar posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Our entire government is explicitly set up to prevent tyranny of the majority.

And in doing so, enables the tyranny of the minority.

Which is the driving force behind every successful progressive movement in the history of the country.
---

Romes187 posted...

Good job guys weve almost figured out how to fix our govt

75% to pass a law.
50%+1 to repeal a law.

There. Problem solved.

s0nicfan posted...

Antifar posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Our entire government is explicitly set up to prevent tyranny of the majority.

And in doing so, enables the tyranny of the minority.

Which is the driving force behind every successful progressive movement in the history of the country.

No.
This is how oligarchies are made.

But we are getting off point here.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Our entire government is explicitly set up to prevent tyranny of the majority. Either you fail to understand that, or actively desire it. Both are bad.

You know "tyranny of the majority" doesn't just mean "the majority get their way", right?

Like you have to actually make a case that the majority is using their status as the majority to target the minority. What laws do the majority of the country support that you consider "tyranny of the majority"? It seems like a disproportionate segment of the population is imposing their will on issues that it's hard to argue should be "local", like the federal tax rates on corporations, legality of abortion, civil rights, etc.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Which is the driving force behind every successful progressive movement in the history of the country.

The New Deal happened because Democrats had immense popular vote majorities. The Civil Rights act went through the House with relative ease, but was delayed by lengthy filibusters by Senators representing a small minority of the country's population. The ACA, to give a more recent example, required a landslide election to make it possible. In what ways are these tyrannies of the minority?
---

The real problem with our government is systemic. Trump of all people pointed it out recently by openly admitting to it.

When asked about the rising national debt, his response was "I won't be here when it blows up"

Politicians (from both sides) aren't working for the good of America. They're working to get reelected. They are just giving the people short term gratification and putting off the fallout for another day.

How does THAT get fixed, or even addressed?
---

The main instance where tyranny of the majority is bad that I can think of is direct democracy. Really that won't happen with officials in government, even in oppressive and small governments.
---

Ambience posted...

The real problem with our government is systemic. Trump of all people pointed it out recently by openly admitting to it.

When asked about the rising national debt, his response was "I won't be here when it blows up"

Politicians (from both sides) aren't working for the good of America. They're working to get reelected. They are just giving the people short term gratification and putting off the fallout for another day.

How does THAT get fixed, or even addressed?

Also another problem is that there are people in this world who think the govenment's "debt" and the "deficit" are comparable to your family's budget.
---

Ambience posted...

The real problem with our government is systemic. Trump of all people pointed it out recently by openly admitting to it.

When asked about the rising national debt, his response was "I won't be here when it blows up"

Politicians (from both sides) aren't working for the good of America. They're working to get reelected. They are just giving the people short term gratification and putting off the fallout for another day.

How does THAT get fixed, or even addressed?

Revolution.

If elected officials ignore what the people want, the people will eventually want blood.

Republicans delay it by focusing people's anger in minorities so they won't go after them.
---

We are a federation of states. The balance of power was always intended to work this way, and not to favor areas with the most population.

s0nicfan posted...

Are people really so stupid as to think that republicans will never again hold a majority in the house when they call for something like this? I swear, people are all too willing to throw away checks and balances and then pikachu face when the opposing party takes power and uses those same new powers to do shit they don't want.

with the huge push to kill gerrymandering in many states, any future GOP control of the house should hopefully require that they actually earn more votes in an election
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Ambience posted...

The real problem with our government is systemic. Trump of all people pointed it out recently by openly admitting to it.

When asked about the rising national debt, his response was "I won't be here when it blows up"

Politicians (from both sides) aren't working for the good of America. They're working to get reelected. They are just giving the people short term gratification and putting off the fallout for another day.

How does THAT get fixed, or even addressed?

Revolution.

If elected officials ignore what the people want, the people will eventually want blood.

Republicans delay it by focusing people's anger in minorities so they won't go after them.

Revolution isn't the only answer, its just the shortest one. It's also the bloodiest and most costly. If a number of important issues were addressed at their core we wouldn't have such widespread issues. Of course we are still talking constitutional amendments at the very least. The chances states will want that are nonexistent. A revolution on the other hand is something that could happen.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Ambience posted...

The real problem with our government is systemic. Trump of all people pointed it out recently by openly admitting to it.

When asked about the rising national debt, his response was "I won't be here when it blows up"

Politicians (from both sides) aren't working for the good of America. They're working to get reelected. They are just giving the people short term gratification and putting off the fallout for another day.

How does THAT get fixed, or even addressed?

Revolution.

If elected officials ignore what the people want, the people will eventually want blood.

Republicans delay it by focusing people's anger in minorities so they won't go after them.

Revolution isn't the only answer, its just the shortest one. It's also the bloodiest and most costly. If a number of important issues were addressed at their core we wouldn't have such widespread issues. Of course we are still talking constitutional amendments at the very least. The chances states will want that are nonexistent. A revolution on the other hand is something that could happen.

The history of the us is one paved in blood. Pretty much every major regulation we have ever implemented has happened due to people dying.

I don't see any way the current state of the us will get better without spilling blood of those at the top.
---

Thatuser posted...

The balance of power was always intended to work this way,

The founding fathers were not as unified in this view as you may think; there was pretty significant opposition to equal representation in the Senate at the time.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/minority-rule-not-in-the-constitution.html

To say, for example, that the Framers consciously built minority rule into the Senate is to ignore the actual debates around the structure of the chamber, which show fierce disagreement leading to a tepid compromise between two sides, one advocating proportional representation and the other backing equal representation of the states. Madison flatly rejected the latter. [W]hatever reason might have existed for the equality of suffrage when the Union was a federal one among sovereign States it must cease when a national [government] should be put into place.

On its first vote, the committee responsible for designing the chamber agreed on proportional representation. The Senates cooling functionits ability to be more deliberativewould rest not on equal representation, but on its smaller size and longer terms of office for members. (Its worth mentioning as well, in discussions over state sovereignty, that Madison wanted to give the Senate a veto over state legislation.)

When small state representatives pushed for equal representationwhich had been a feature of the Articles of ConfederationMadison and other advocates of proportional representation in the Senate responded with sharp arguments against. Madison dismissed the fear that large states would gang up on their smaller counterparts, pointing to cultural and economic differences among large states. In point of situation they could not have been more effectually separated from each other by the most jealous citizen of the most jealous state. Madison even made the pointedand to modern ears, familiarargument that the real division between the states was North and South, free and unfree. He summarizes the point in his notes from the convention, in which he contended that the States were divided into different interests not by their difference of size, but by other circumstances; the most material of which resulted partly from climate, but principally from the effects of their having or not having slaves.

Benjamin Franklin, another opponent of equal representation of states, pushed back against the idea that small-state citizens would be burdened under proportional representation. The Interest of a State is made up of the interests of its individual members, he said. If they are not injured, the State is not injured. Pennsylvanias James Wilson was more prophetic: Equality of votes among the States will subject the majority of the People & Property to be governed by a minority of each. This, he said, was too palpable an error, too great a Defect in the Constitution to permit the expectation of public harmony & Happiness.

But small-state representatives wouldnt budge, using the threat of exit to force compromise. In Federalist No. 62, Madison says it is superfluous to justify the Senate according to republican principles. Instead, it is the result of a spirit of amity. Rather than lose the small states from the union, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil."

Put simply, key voices anticipated the problems the Senate might pose for governance and democratic representation. That future Americans, to whom the Framers entrusted the republic and its maintenance, might seek reform to solve those problems is not an attack on the intent of the Constitution. It is in keeping with the debates around its creation.

Even if they had been in agreement on this, there are other things they intended that we've done away with.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Ambience posted...

The real problem with our government is systemic. Trump of all people pointed it out recently by openly admitting to it.

When asked about the rising national debt, his response was "I won't be here when it blows up"

Politicians (from both sides) aren't working for the good of America. They're working to get reelected. They are just giving the people short term gratification and putting off the fallout for another day.

How does THAT get fixed, or even addressed?

Revolution.

If elected officials ignore what the people want, the people will eventually want blood.

Republicans delay it by focusing people's anger in minorities so they won't go after them.

Revolution isn't the only answer, its just the shortest one. It's also the bloodiest and most costly. If a number of important issues were addressed at their core we wouldn't have such widespread issues. Of course we are still talking constitutional amendments at the very least. The chances states will want that are nonexistent. A revolution on the other hand is something that could happen.

The history of the us is one paved in blood. Pretty much every major regulation we have ever implemented has happened due to people dying.

I don't see any way the current state of the us will get better without spilling blood of those at the top.

The power disparity is larger than ever now. And it's easy for someone to miss some crooked law or evil person replacing what is already there.
---