Would we be better off with a reformed Senate or without one at all?

[white_wolf]

I've heard some people mention that we should reform the Senate to operate on basis of representation by population as opposed to the current system and I've even heard some say we should just abolish it and have only the House. What do you all think? Reform, abolish, or keep it the same? I'm in favor of representation by population, personally.

[SDuderstadt]

1. Yeah...

just throw checks and balances out the window.

Poorly thought through idea.

[tkmorris]

5. I don't see any specific ideas posted

so I'm not sure what you are objecting to, unless it is the basic idea that the Senate should not reflect population but rather individual states. If so I can see the argument but do believe that individual states' representation is far less important now than it was when the Senate was originally conceived.

[SDuderstadt]

6. Your first clue was...

"checks and balances".

[tkmorris]

15. Being a bit rude don't you think?

I saw your comment re checks and balances, however you didn't go into much detail. I do understand how the Senate acts to balance the more volatile House, and how it protects individual states concerns at the federal level, but is it still as necessary today as it was two centuries ago? I am not certain, and was hoping to have a conversation on the matter.

[SDuderstadt]

16. I assume most people have a rudimentary understanding of...

how our system works.

[white_wolf]

9. Oh, its you again. Good job having no clue what "checks and balances" mean

Now, I remember why I put you on ignore, welcome back to it.

[SDuderstadt]

12. Dude...

the fact the framers provided for the House to be elected on the basis of population and each state to have two Senators irrespective of population, is a check and balance in and of itself.

Putting people who know more than you on "ignore" is a short-sighted strategy, dude.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

2. no and no.

do you really want to get rid of people like Bernie Sanders and Pat Leahy?

[Common Sense Party]

3. Neither one is going to happen, nor should it.

We already have representation by population. It's called the House of Representatives.

[Terra Alta]

4. I like it the way it is.

Two Senators from every state. The House is already representation based on population.

[BobbyBoring]

7. It needs to be reformed

but then again, the whole system needs to be reformed.

Think about it. We are governed by election cycles. During said cycle, someone is always lying about one thing or another and the media supports the lies of their favorite candidate.

Reform begins with publicly funded elections. After Citizens United though, we might be way past any kind of reform unless half the populous pulls their heads out of their asses.

[Motown_Johnny]

8. that all sounds like crazy talk to me

Changing the filibuster and some of the other rules would be a good thing, but anything beyond that I am against.


It would also be a political impossibility. To pass an amendment to change the Senate you would need 3/4 of the states to ratify it. That will never happen because you are reducing the political influence of the low population states, they will never support it. The same holds true for the popular vote in presidential elections, politically impossible.

[Ozymanithrax]

10. Give congress an unlimited majority rules stamp...

I don't think so.

Imagine, the Abolish Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security Bill going straight to the President's desk. They have 242 Republicans and need 290 to over rule a veto. How many Democrats would vote with Republicans on about half the bills.

Besides, it requires a Constitutional amendment to either change the Senate or get rid of it. If we could do that, why not just change to a parliamentary system where we could have more than 2 parties.

[damntexdem]

11. We're not going to get a change in the Senate.

In fact, the Constitution states that changing equal representation of STATES in the Senate is the only Constitutional provision that currently cannot be altered by amendment (although presumably that exclusion could first be altered by amendment and then changes to the Senate made in a subsequent amendment). In any case, we'll never get 2/3 votes and ratification by 3/4 of the states.

On the other hand, Senate procedures COULD be reformed by a majority vote of the Senate at the start of any term.

[Yo_Mama]

13. What's wrong with the status quo?

States have very different economies and interests.

The House, with its representation by population, has more power in most respects under the Constitution. For instance, it must originate spending bills.

The Senate, with its representation by state (2 Senators by state) provides a way to ensure that minority interests among the states are given more attention than they otherwise would. Overall I think it is a good system that tends to balance competing priorities and interests.

[DevonRex]

17. The six-year terms of senators guard us against mob riule.

Would you like to be governed by the tea party right now? They're the fad of the day. In two years maybe there'll be another fad group that takes control of the house. The senate protects us from that insanity.

[dionysus]

18. without a senate, the teabaggers would be launching CRUSIE!!1! MISSELS!!1!!

care for a truffle?
:hi: