Seems that the Senate has become a constitutional suicide pact

[Cyrano]

The U.S. Constitution says that every state gets two senators.

California has almost 40 million people and they have two senators.

Wyoming has a few dozen people and they also have two senators.

Do you think there's something wrong with this picture? Does it seem that mostly rural red states have a disproportionate say in the makeup of the senate? Do you think that Democrats, who live in mostly urban and suburban areas, can ever put in place a senate that represents the majority of Americans?

At times in the past, Democrats have controlled the senate. Given today's reality, there seems to be no way in which we can take control of the senate in the foreseeable future. And here's where we get fucked beyond repair because of the federal courts, -- the third branch of government.

Trump and the Republicans are flooding the federal judiciary with wingnuts who only need senate approval. And they're being approved every single day that the senate is in session.

Many (most?) of Obama's federal judicial appointments were blocked by a Republican senate. Put into plain English, they spent years fucking us and waiting for the moment they could pack the federal judiciary. That moment arrived two years ago and is continuing at this very moment.

One entire branch of the three branches of government, the judiciary, is being rigged to screw us beyond our wildest nightmares. And there's not One. Fucking. Thing. we can do about it.

The Constitution wasn't meant to be a suicide pact. But it seems to have turned out that way.

[dumbcat]

1. We need to do away with the Senate

with the same Constitutional Amendment that does away with the Electoral College.

The time is now!

[Zambero]

26. Or have a more proportionate representation?

Say from 1 to 4 seats, still allowing the smaller states legislative standing, but not to the skewed extent that currently exists.

[RKP5637]

37. This, makes a lot of sense to me! n/t

[Bettie]

45. Actually, that makes a lot of sense

Though, I'd say 2-6 depending on population. That gives a broader spectrum to ensure that everyone is properly represented.

[tinrobot]

46. I was thinking 2-6

Bottom third of states get 2

Top third get 6

The rest get 4

[dumbcat]

58. Why bother?

We already have the House of Representatives which is apportioned democratically by population. Why even have another chamber that is also proportioned the same way? Just have one legislative body. Doesn’t get more democratic than that. There is no reason for the states to have separate representation.

[RKP5637]

2. Yep, the founding fathers never envisioned, nor could they have, this rigged mess we have today. n/t

[DemocracyMouse]

30. We must drop the Senate just as the Brits effectively cut off the House of Lords

[RKP5637]

36. The senate makes no sense to me. Why should states with few residents have as much say as states

with large populations. It might have made sense a long time ago, but this is the 21st century. Also, the Electoral College IMO is useless today, as well as super delegates. I also like what was said in #26.

[radius777]

60. Agree, the founders never envisioned

such an absurd situation, as massive 'mini-countries' like CA and NY (and TX, to be fair) given the same two Senators as empty and/or tiny states that have more wildlife than people.

The founders also could've never foreseen the enormous power the Senate and SCOTUS would have over the lives of the people.

Our current system values rural/white/retro voters far more than urban/suburban/diverse/metro voters.

Hillary was exactly correct in her India speech, where she said she won all of the dynamic/growing areas in the country (as Dems typically do).

The current system is bullshit, basically taxation w/o representation.

[RKP5637]

61. Exactly: "The current system is bullshit, basically taxation w/o representation." And then add in

the Electoral College and Citizens United. To put it even mildly, the system is totally fucked up.

[hlthe2b]

3. Corrupt redistricting is what has made this so problematic...

The founders had never intended such gerrymandering to render the popular vote irrelevent.
I believe the solution is popular vote for all elections, rather than electoral college AND nonpartisan commissions to determine congressional districts. Colorado voters just passed the following statutory change to the redistricting process:

SCR18-004
Congressional Redistricting
Submitting to the registered electors of the state of Colorado an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a change to the way that congressional districts are drawn, and, in connection therewith, taking the duty to draw congressional districts away from the state legislature and giving it to an independent commission, composed of twelve citizens who possess specified qualifications; prohibiting any one political party's control of the commission by requiring that one-third of commissioners will not be affiliated with any political party, one-third of the commissioners will be affiliated with the state's largest political party, and one-third of the commissioners will be affiliated with the state's second largest political party; prohibiting certain persons, including professional lobbyists, federal campaign committee employees, and federal, state, and local elected officials, from serving on the commission; limiting judicial review of a map to a determination by the supreme court of whether the commission or its nonpartisan staff committed an abuse of discretion; requiring the commission to draw districts with a focus on communities of interest and political subdivisions, such as cities and counties, and then to maximize the number of competitive congressional seats to the extent possible; and prohibiting maps from being drawn to dilute the electoral influence of any racial or ethnic group or to protect any incumbent, any political candidate, or any political party.

[euphorb]

7. Gerrymandering and redistricting has nothing to do with the disproportion in the Senate.

Gerrymandering affects the proportional representation in the House. But the disproportion in the Senate is due solely to the disproportion in the population among the various states.

[hlthe2b]

14. Fully aware, but the overrepresentation of the Senate by low population states is only

aggravated by the lack of populist representation in the House as a result of gerrymandering in many of these same states and by extension, the electoral college.

[Cyrano]

8. Gerrymandering influences the House. Not the Senate.

No matter how districts are drawn, a senatorial candidate is elected by a statewide vote. Gerrymandered districts have zero influence on this.

[hlthe2b]

11. Fully aware, but the overrepresentation of the Senate by low population states is only

aggravated by the lack of populist representation in the House as a result of gerrymandering in many of these same states and by extension, the electoral college.

[DBoon]

27. The founding father likely did not anticipate election by direct vote of the entire adult populace

and remember that slaves counted 3/5 for allocating representation. Slaves were considered as farm animals and were maybe barely recognized as human.

[brush]

4. It's fu_ked up all right. Hope in 2020 we get the Senate and kick turtleman to the curb...

then maybe roll back some of these repug excesses.

[RKP5637]

38. Turdman is one of the greatest problems going in the senate IMO. n/t

[mr_lebowski]

5. Yes, it's friggin BS. Obviously, don't think the Founders could've have foreseen ...

The country, under this same founding document, growing to 50 states, with such WILDLY varying population sizes. Not that there weren't larger and smaller states among the original 13 colonies, but I don't think (offhand) any were as different as, say, California and Wyoming. If they had, they probably would've made allowances for some population-size adjustments at the Senate level as well.

Nor did they foresee the eventual power of 'Party' based politics.

But ... it's what we have. At least the POTUS is still REASONABLY close to an 'overall popular vote' position, since Electors at the College are based on population.

So basic reality is ... Dems MUST always win POTUS for the balance of power to ever be 'fair'. Because the Senate is likely to be held by the GOP the vast majority of the time in today's climate, with current demographics.

[marylandblue]

6. No system can last forever

We are stuck with a Constitution written for a different time that is also difficult to amend. It has become a rigid structure that no longer matches what we need. This happens to every civilization. And either the civilization reforms the structure or it breaks.

[lamsmy]

29. So true!

I have always been struck by Americans' fierce devotion to a document written hundreds of years ago. Especially as most would be unable to tell you with any certainty exactly it says. To us foreigners it has always looked obsessive and borderline nutso.

But most importantly, this blind devotion blinds far too many to need for change. I used to think you would eventually see the light and get your s*** together but I'm beginning to wonder if it is too late.

Half of America has drunk the koolaid and they still want more.

[RKP5637]

39. Well said IMO!!! n/t

[Cyrano]

42. It's incredibly difficult to amend the Constitution

It currently favors Republicans and they're not about to contribute the votes for necessary changes.

[ffr]

9. Forty million, not four million.

Carry on.

[Cyrano]

10. Correct. My bad. I fixed it.

[Azathoth]

12. The Senate has always been the Great Compromise

Unlike the Electoral College, which was sort of an ad hoc "design by committee" accident that arose because the Founders all agreed on having a President but didn't want him directly elected OR appointed and so they had to concoct some way to get him into office, the Senate compromise was fundamental. It was literally the linchpin that secured union and ratification of the Constitution.

You can get rid of the EC (and it has already been largely neutered), but if you toss the Senate you're heading right back to 1787.

[zipplewrath]

13. It's a serious problem

The intent was to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. But it was designed when there were 13 states ranging from Virginia to Rhode Island. Now, we have it ranging from California to Wyoming. (by the way California has 40 million, not 4). I calculated once (about 10 years ago) that in theory, 13% of the population could control the Senate. I'm dubious that was ever the intent. Yes, it should be true that the majority in the senate should have to be both solid and enduring. The enduring part comes from the staggered election cycles. The "solid" part should be that you shouldn't have an overwhelming majority control just because the 5 or 10 most populous states are united. But the massively shifting demographics of the population, away from the central states, towards the urban and coastal areas is not being "recognized" in anyway in the senate and really actually results in giving excessive authority to rural whites. It's out of control, and has been for a couple of decades. And it distorts everything from the courts to foreign policy. f

I saw an interesting proposal one time that said that states that become "too populated" should be forced (constitutionally) to divide so as to maintain some level of "balance". In some cases, it could be that states becoming too "small" be force to merge. So Florida and California might be required to divide in two or three, and the Dakotas be required to unite. Lots of details to work out (wadda ya do about places like Hawaii and Alaska). But one can see the point of the idea.

[MichMan]

22. Or we could just order people to move to low population areas

If we got rid of the Senate, what would stop a populous state like California and others in the SW from doing something like diverting the Great Lakes with a pipeline because they need the water?

[zipplewrath]

23. It's not getting rid of it

Like I said, there is justification for making sure that the minority is protected. A few high population states shouldn't get majority control of the senate any more than a few minority states should. It is the magnitude of the imbalance that is causing this. The people who wrote the rules knew nothing of a California, Texas, or Florida. The most populated state was Virginia. We took the chamber that was suppose to be responsive to the state legislatures and made it elected by popular vote. We took the chamber that was suppose to represent the people, and changed it to cause a disproportionate influence by the smallest states.

[unblock]

15. it's this way by design. the senate was never meant to represent the people.

the house of representatives was meant to represent the people.

the senate was meant to represent the states. in fact, it was specifically meant to represent the states equally, as an express measure to make sure that the most populous states (like virginia and pennsylvania at the time) would not have a greater say than the least populous states.

that makes sense historically, both as a part of the disturbing compromise regarding slavery (that the south could keep it, but that the north could keep it out) and also because, fundamentally, the constitution was an agreement among the states, not among the people.


i don't object, in theory, to the idea of making the senate more representative of the people, but i don't see any such discussion as particularly constructive because any such amendment would be virtually impossible, given that it requires ratification of 3/4ths of the states -- exactly the entities you're asking to give up power and clout. that's a really tall order.

[BeyondGeography]

16. I wonder if the founders would give a fig

if we called them back and told them we’re in a situation now where 16% of the population has a claim on 50% of the Senate and the Electoral College has become a rubber stamp for tyranny of the minority. I honestly don’t know the answer to that.

I share your pessimism on a fix, but we’re looking at a mess here. Something is going to have to give. When outdated structures fail to evolve things tend to break.

[unblock]

18. the framers would never have dreamed their system would last more than two centuries.

especially given how much has changed.

no slavery?
women, blacks, and 18-year olds can all vote?
50 states?
never mind the changes in society, technology, geopolitics, etc....

it would boggle they minds that the constitution survived all that.

it has some defects now? they'd be amazed it works at all in a society and in circumstances so completely different from the one it was designed for.


i'm not entirely pessimistic, because we've managed with an imperfect system.
2018 provides a roadmap. we just need for democrats to beat republicans by at least 7% or so to overcome the hurdles.

then, hopefully, we can get a better census map and pass laws to allow every citizen to vote easily and have their vote actually counted.

[BeyondGeography]

20. Well said

The players still have an impact on the game. There are things our side can do better but it’s hard to imagine how the Republicans and their lackeys in the Courts could have behaved worse.

Paul Volker recently said in so many words that no system of government can survive a sustained attack by rich people aiming billions of dollars at its stress points. I agree with that. As Democrats we need to do a better job of sounding the alarm. Too often we come up way too short on that score.

[unc70]

17. In 2020 Dems will gain control of Senate for a long time

Yes, the Senate is undemocratic. It was never meant to be, and it is unlikely to change. But it will soon be a Democratic-controlled institution again. Both 2020 and 2022 will be favorable to Dems in the Senate.

[zipplewrath]

24. Not according to Nate

He was suggesting 2024 before it looked good for the Dems to regain control of the Senate.

[Garrett78]

47. Yeah, 2020 doesn't actually look so good. For starters, keeping that Alabama seat will be tough.

[2naSalit]

19. Well...

I am from a small population red state with fewer than the "few dozen" people you mentioned (and therefore, we only have one Rep in the House) and all I have to say to that is Hog Wash!

I think your view of how the government is composed is just whining about the lack of participation by the electorate who just figured out that they are supposed to participate to make it work... pointing fingers rather than looking in the mirror and seeing who is to blame in this mess.

I'm gonna put this all caps, not because I'm yelling but so nobody misses this point while browsing and nodding in agreement with you:

EVERY STATE HAS TWO SENATORS SO THAT THERE IS AN EQUAL BALANCE OF POWER IN A VERY POWERFUL ARM OF OUR NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE BODY. EVERY STATE GETS AS MANY HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES AS THE POPULATION OF THAT STATE WARRANTS. THAT'S WHERE YOU CAN HAVE REPRESENTATION COMMENSURATE WITH THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS IN EACH STATE, IT'S WHY THE CENSUS MATTERS EVERY TEN YEARS.


I have non problem with the way this was set up by the framers of the Constitution. Sounds reasonably like a serious attempt at ensuring equality, albeit not every human was considered worthy of the voting privileges at the time but then we had slavery back then too.

So it isn't perfect but we have ourselves to blame in this by being complacent and choosing not to participate in this participatory government. If you have problems with how this came into being, look in the mirror before deciding to change the Constitution because some group has violated it and taken over while many were too busy staring at their communicators to look up and see the cliff we just sped off of like Thelma and Louise.


I vote in every election and I have spent at least 20 years in the trenches fighting for progress on many fronts, I pay attention and participate. How about everyone else?

Got a problem with those who stole our government that actually works for the people when it's functioning properly? Then work to oust them within legal parameters outlined in the Constitution and other legal processes that are already established, the tools are there, it just takes effort and time. Coloring outside the lines will not make for lasting change... it's what they did and they will suffer for it in time.

Just because someone stole your car and is careening about recklessly with it doesn't mean that the car doesn't still work well.

[HopeAgain]

28. De tocqueville's "tyranny of the majority" was over compensated for.

We clearly now have, between the Senate and the Electoral College, a tyranny of the minority. Any system which can put such crucial things as appointment of Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices, international relations and the like in the hands of a clear minority simply flies in the face of principled democracy.

[2naSalit]

59. That means that we will have to make an effort

through legal means, to abolish the electoral college. We abolished slavery and child labor and a number of other problem practices, we can abolish that too. We just have to organize and make it happen.

What I'm hearing still doesn't sound like contemplative solution options.

[sarisataka]

21. The Senate was not created

To represent the population proportionally but to represent the states equally.

If the states still selected Senators, instead of our current Direct election due to the 17th Amendment, the Senate makeup would likely be 62 Republicans and 38 Democrats give or take two seats.

[zipplewrath]

25. Yabbut

Represent 13 states equally that were made up of the largest being Virginia and the smallest was Rhode Island. The nation looks nothing like that now. The system was meant to protect a minority, not give it majority power. It was meant to give the minority an outsized voice, not controlling authority.

[greymattermom]

31. So what maybe the number of Senators should be fixed at the ratio of

the population of Virginia to Rhode Island in 1776. That's what the Founding Fathers intended.

[zipplewrath]

44. Probably not

The real problem is the number of states to some degree. The 21 smallest states each have less than 1% of the population. In 1790, the smallest state had 1.5% of the population. Furthermore, the 7 smallest stretched from Maine to Georgia. Today, other than West Virginia, they are virtually the entire "middle" of the country, from Mississippi to Idaho (plus Alaska and Hawaii. I'll grant you RI, DE, NH, and ME). 25 states have 16% of the population, and it is highly concentrated in the middle of the continent. And it is getting more pronounced, and gentrified as well. On the other hand, 5 states (10%) have roughly 37% of the population. in 1790 it took 23% of the states to get over 40%.

Mind you I don't see an easy fix to this problem. Especially under the current constitution.

[JCMach1]

32. DC, PR, VI and Guam statehood would

Take care of it.... Maybe even Northern Marianas

[YessirAtsaFact]

33. It's much easier for Democrats to repair relations with rural America

Than doing away with the Senate.

First off, I think we need to be running radio ads on all the hate radio stations.

Stating what the Democratic party is, instead of the caricature that has been created by the propaganda machine.

The next time there is a majority of Democrats on the FCC board, we need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, so that Limbaugh and Info Wars are interrupted by a few minutes of sanity throughout the day.

[Sam3]

34. "Deets, not doom," should be a bumper sticker, in your honor.

[YessirAtsaFact]

35. Deets?

[rzemanfl]

51. ESL IMHO n/t

[RKP5637]

40. This, would be an excellent approach IMO. n/t

[CrispyQ]

41. The Senate was set up this way so that each state has equal representation.

Every State in the Union is equal & one chamber of Congress was set up to represent that equality. In the House, the representation is by the population of the state, so CA has 53 reps & WY has 1. And because the GOP managed to gerrymander the House, it disproportionally represents the GOP. The country is not as red as the maps make it appear. Also, the media has given a bullhorn to the right, so their voice seems stronger than it actually is. Then when you add corporate influence, due to money in our electoral process, the right's representation is even more skewed to their favor.

[Cyrano]

43. States are not people

They are artificial boundaries from a long gone era.

Nonetheless, we're stuck with them. And the result is today's tyranny of a minority

[Garrett78]

48. Can there be a Senate that represents the majority? No.

We have a tyranny of the minority system.

[Cyrano]

49. Yep. The constitution needs fixing.

But amending the constitution is almost as difficult as explaining to Trump that the Earth isn't flat.

[Garrett78]

50. This very problem is why Republicans would have an easier time amending the Constitution.

[standingtall]

52. The senate math could be corrected by adding states

would not require a constitutional amendment would just require us to have the Presidency,senate,congress and the will as a collective to do it. Adding D.C. and all inhabited U.S. territories as states which are mostly made up of minority demographics would go along way toward counter balancing the current system.

[Cyrano]

53. Yes. Would really like to see Puerto Rico push for statehood

[Buckeyeblue]

54. Senators are supposed to represent their states

But I think they have gotten away from that. Now they just do what their party wants.

What was the last thing Turtle did for KY? He rarely even mentions Kentucky.

[pecosbob]

55. The Senate works just as intended acting to maintain the status quo

The problem is gerrymandering and voter suppression...and it points to the solution.

[Maven]

57. Not exactly

The Senate was not intended to maintain the status quo. It was intended to give equal representation to each state so that smaller states would join the Union.

However, it was designed at a time when there were far fewer states and the disparity in population between states was not nearly as great as it is now.

Population continues to concentrate in a minority of states meaning that the Senate now serves as a vehicle for an ever-smaller (proportionally-speaking) regressive minority of the population to impose its will on the majority and bring governance to a halt.

[Maven]

56. Yes, we have a Constitution that is now serving to impose minority rule on the population

And the disproportion in voting power between members of the minority and members of the majority is only growing. It's not sustainable.

Our system has major design flaws -- well, really, they were intentional compromises -- that should have been addressed ages ago. Relics like the Senate and the Electoral College may well be the unraveling of our current system. As others have pointed out, our 240-year-old Constitution is well past its prime and was never meant to serve as our governing document for so long.

The only way to save the Union, I believe, is to push for reforms that increase democratic representation within the confines of the system we have. To do that, we will need to add many more representatives to the House, and we will also need to add senators by granting statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico (long overdue anyway) and perhaps dividing California into multiple states. For more on this, I highly recommend David Faris' book "It's Time To Fight Dirty".