Do we need to consider shifting Senate representation....

[Aviation Pro]

...from the historical two per state to something more in line with percentage of constituents represented? Afterall, if we take a look at a state that has 1,000,000 residents (.3% of the U.S. population) and is the size of let's say Montana isn't that wholly unfair to a state with a population of 36,000,000 that represents 12% of the U.S. population. (Furthermore, the Senators from the small population states usually are embedded like tics once elected and they - and their small minds - rise to powerful positions based on their tenure rather than their brains).

Spelling.

[Zywiec]

1. Isn't that the purpose of the house of representatives? n/t

[dkofos]

2. I prefer term limits

[RC]

3. Being from North Dakota... I vote NO!

Population, 2006 est -- 635,867

Population, 2000 ------ 642,200

This gives me more power. Someday I can be the decider here.

Also all three of our congress critters are Democrats and they are hardly small minded.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

5. Being from NY I voted Yes! lol! ;) nt

[Recursion]

4. What you're seeing as the problem with the Senate was its intention

The purposes of the Senate are to:
1. Over-represent rural people
2. Make quick changes in law unlikely if not impossible
3. Keep the President from adventurism in foreign policy

OK, so they've kind of screwed up #3... but a bunch of fat old rich white men preventing legislation the people want from passing is exactly what the Senate was intended to be, so that we don't pass every fad-of-the-week law that the media turns people on to.

[Benhurst]

9. They screwed up on #2 as well.

The fascist so-called "Patriot" Act sailed through at record speed. So when faced with probably the worst piece of legislation in our nation's history, the system failed.

As for #1, is any group of citizens really represented? The corporations have more representation in all the states, whether red or blue, than the citizens. Increasingly, thanks to a corrupt Supreme Court, corporations even have more Constitutional protections than the average citizen.

Fad-of-the-week? Universal health care? A sane foreign policy? A decent safety net? A free press, not controlled by the merchants of death? Etc., etc., etc. These are the things being blocked under our flawed system.

[Aviation Pro]

6. Given the malfeasance of one-party rule for...

...the better part of the last six years, the complacency of placing party over nation, and the propensity for it to cycle over and over again I'd say that we have evolved (or devolved) from the framers intent. Also, the myth of the rural community is fast fading in a society as mobile as we are. If you don't like the representation you have, you're twenty-four hours from better representation.

[Chipper Chat]

7. No. Small states need a voice.

Some I admire: Robert Byrd (WVA), John Tester MT), John Kerry & Ted Kennedy (MASS), Byron Dorgan & Kent Conrad (ND), Dan Akaka (HI), Joe Biden (DEL), Dick Lugar (R-IN), Jack Reed & Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Bernie Sanders & Patrick Leahy (VT). Pretty impressive group, don't you think?
You'll notice one particular senator from a small state that begins with a C does not appear on this list - you KNOW which one too.

[Aviation Pro]

10. All good....

...but what applies to rural Republicans also applies to Democrats. Misrepresentation does more harm than good.

[Chipper Chat]

13. OK. How about an "at large" sysytem?

Add 40 senators that would be elected nationally. They could come from any state (if they're good, their home constituancy would give them a boost in votes). Maybe with a caveat that they would be barred from voting on pork issues for their home state. The possibilities are endless. They would prolly have to knock out a wall in the senate chamber. And no more VPs breaking ties.

[Benhurst]

12. I think you are stretching it a bit to have John Kerry & Ted Kennedy

on your list. Massachusetts, ranked 13th out of 50, is hardly a small state in terms of population.

As for Dick Lugar, whose record is pretty awful, he only distinguishes himself from the hardcore Republicans when they are about do something completely crazy, as when The Gipper began backing the wrong side in the obviously corrupt Philippine elections or the country is headed over a cliff as it is in Iraq. Usually, though, he is part of the fascist herd.

[Chipper Chat]

14. Yikes. You just reminded me about Boston traffic.

Indiana has a large population too. But I was painting with a broad brush. Besides, I'll give my hero Ted Kennedy a plug at any opportunity!

[MonkeyFunk]

8. It's never gonna happen

because it would require the states that benefit from this system to vote to lose their power.

[Bake]

11. No, for a coule of reasons.

The founders intended the Senate and the House to balance each other. Does it give small states greater power (in the Senate)? Sure. But they'd be swallowed up in the House by states like NY and CA. So it's a balance, and it works as long as you don't have a party of fools with a death grip on the majority.

The other reason is that you'd have to essentially re-write the Constitution, and I'm not comfortable with opening up that can of worms in today's climate. I fear we'd end up with a theocracy with no Bill of Rights....

Bake

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Yes. We don't need a House of Lords. It's undemocratic.

[DU9598]

16. How about this

Do we need to consider redrawing state lines so each state has equal population? Seems like it would more equitable.

[Igel]

17. As an anti-majoritarian tool, I like it.

It means you need two different kinds of majorities to get things done.