It's infinitely more likely that the Senate would be abolished than the House would be.
Abolish the Senate
- Thread starter Elta
- Start date
It's infinitely more likely that the Senate would be abolished than the House would be.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
I could support the disestablishment of the senate if some other checks and balances were added to the system. The constitutional amendment allowing a supermajority of state legislatures to repeal federal laws would good start. It might also be good to allow the states to override presidential vetoes, or to require them to approve treaties.
Rather than do away with the institution entirely, I think I would prefer a radical reform. As it is, all legislatures serve limited constituencies, and only the president can claim (somewhat tenuously) to be a representative of the nation at large. I would like to the inclusion of some legislators whose duty is to serve the country as a whole rather than any local interests. I would suggest electing Senators through Reweighted Range Voting, with perhaps the top 5 rated candidates nation wide getting seats in the single national at large district each election. This system would favor moderate candidates, encourage cooperation rather than polarization, and provide a sort of proportional representation to protect the rights of those of minority opinions. Reducing the total number of senators to about 25 could make things run more smoothly. I'd rather do away with the system of seniority entirely and have the senate leadership decided though (nonpartisan) range voting, but I suppose it could also be acceptable to give the equivalent of seniority to those who were elected in earlier rounds of the vote counting of each election cycle.
Rather than do away with the institution entirely, I think I would prefer a radical reform. As it is, all legislatures serve limited constituencies, and only the president can claim (somewhat tenuously) to be a representative of the nation at large. I would like to the inclusion of some legislators whose duty is to serve the country as a whole rather than any local interests. I would suggest electing Senators through Reweighted Range Voting, with perhaps the top 5 rated candidates nation wide getting seats in the single national at large district each election. This system would favor moderate candidates, encourage cooperation rather than polarization, and provide a sort of proportional representation to protect the rights of those of minority opinions. Reducing the total number of senators to about 25 could make things run more smoothly. I'd rather do away with the system of seniority entirely and have the senate leadership decided though (nonpartisan) range voting, but I suppose it could also be acceptable to give the equivalent of seniority to those who were elected in earlier rounds of the vote counting of each election cycle.
Cu Chulainn
The Unoriginal
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,377
While I don't necessarily agree with getting rid of the Senate, but I do dislike it more than the House for reasons which are clear. It's not democratic. An individual from a smaller state has vastly more power in the Senate than one from a larger state whereas, in the House, it is approximately even.
And both are at least several millions to one. Zombie apocolypse not withstanding.
Tacitusitis
King
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2010
- Messages
- 839
The Senate is obviously unconstitutional. Just read the 10th Amendment.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
The Senate must remain. Although with less filibusters.
Actually, IIRC, I'm fairly certain I'M Cleo has said several times that the Senate should be abolished. Though I have no idea if there is a movement behind the idea. But it has been mentioned. Reason: It's less democratic than the House. Which is also the answer to VRWA's point. The House is more democratic, more one American = one vote, and so is the better choice to keep. The Senate is further from the ideal of 'government of the people, by the people, and for the people'.
I disagree that its less democratic per se, but I suppose that depends on what definition of "democratic" we are using.
I'd love to hear Cleo's PoV on that; I'd guess he's joking or that its a somewhat sarcastic/satirical comment. Haven't seen him post in a while. Hope the juveniles haven't driven him off.
I disagree that its less democratic per se, but I suppose that depends on what definition of "democratic" we are using.
I'd love to hear Cleo's PoV on that; I'd guess he's joking or that its a somewhat sarcastic/satirical comment. Haven't seen him post in a while. Hope the juveniles haven't driven him off.
Haven't seen him post in a few months
Got tired of it, I guess.I would agree... that it is not, assuming that by "more democratic" you mean allow the public greater direct say in governing.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
Because it's better in the ideologies of people who say more democracy is better.
That and supporters of more openness and democracy believe it won't screw us over due to dictatorship of the majority.
lovett
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,570
It's not. But at certain points we'd definitely say that 'more democratic' is better. We tend to think that a government derives it's legitimacy from the fact that it was formed through democratic processes. That a government has a 'right to govern' due to the consent of the governed. That consent is implied in democratic elections. Legislation, of course, derives it's legitimacy for the legitimacy of the legislature.
If you accept that (and feel free to say if you don't!) then that raises some serious questions about the legitimacy of the senate. The senate legislates on issues concerning everyone. Yet it is an institution in which 10% of the population can block the wishes of 90% of the population. In which 25% of the population can overrule 75% of the population and in which certain people enjoy ten times the representation of other, due to geographical location.
In most circumstances, we wouldn't call such an institution legitimate. I have trouble thinking of reasons to exempt the senate from this reasoning.
Because USA FREAKIN #1
One American, one vote. Being an American deserves at least that. Spoiler :
Quackers
The Frog
What? Your an anarchist! ABOLISH EVERYTHING!
Cu Chulainn
The Unoriginal
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,377
It isn't but greater equality for all Americans surely is. It is suboptimal to have the votes of some be more important than those of others.
Elta
我不会把这种
Why exactly would the Senate be "undemocratic"?
Similar threads
- Locked
