Short of scrapping the Constitution, how do we get rid of the U.S. Senate?

[Lago Ys-Transform]

I'm not going to mince words here. The U.S. Senate is laughably inept and should be gotten rid of. Both in function and principle. It's an artifact of pre-nationalist thinking and shows. It's woefully anti-democratic and shows. Every time I think about it I'm filled with naked contempt for this country because it's not even allowed in serious discourse to discuss its getting rid of because people would scream like crybabies just at the thought of it.

That said, short of discorporating the country and immediately forming a new U.S., there's no way to get rid of it. It's embedded in the Constitution in several places. Short of a reverse-Korwinesque 'amend the unamendable' shenanigan there's just no getting rid of that worthless body. So screw it. We need to come up with a way to cajole the voters and the courts into having a more democratic and representative government.

Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to:

• Change the meaning of 'state' in such a way so that the government will be summarily made much more democratic.
• If the above can't be done, come up with a way to embody the principle of "one-man, one vote" while still preserving those putrid 'states cannot have their borders changed' requirements, as if the state mattered more than the people living in it.
• If neither of the above can't be done, then at least neuter it in a House of Lords-ish way to limit the damage this combination cyst/sacred cow does to the government.

Solutions which use a minimum amount of force and/or unanimity get extra credit.

[Malden Capell]

Speaking as a Brit, I'm a fan of bicameralism, as untrammeled rule by a single chamber is a recipe for bad government, but at the same time I understand your frustration with 'absolute' bicameralism as the US has.

I'd prefer the US switch to 'asymmetrical' bicameralism - the House as the forum of the people is made stronger, and the Senate reduced to a delaying power of 1 or two sessions, apart from crucial subjects (such as treaties or otherwise) which a veto would still be appreciated (or not - superiority of the House in all matters would also be fine).

To accomodate this I'd repeal the 17th Amendment and make the Senate appointed by State Legislatures again. That way States would have a more direct involvement in the Federal government but are not capable of frustrating the popular will.

Of course I'd also make the House sit for longer than 2 years!

Just my two cents anyway

I believe the US Constitution allows for the States to meet for a new National Convention - I guess that's as likely as me being the next US President

[BobLibDem]

There's nothing wrong with the Senate that scrapping the filibuster wouldn't cure. If a minority party has 40 members and are willing to vote as a block, they can paralyze the entire government.

[tim-n-va]

It's an artifact of pre-nationalist thinking and shows.

That seems to be the crux of the issue. I'm not sure it is established that pre-nationalist thinking is a bad thing.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

There's nothing wrong with the Senate that scrapping the filibuster wouldn't cure. If a minority party has 40 members and are willing to vote as a block, they can paralyze the entire government.

Yeah. Getting rid of the Senate is, for all intents and purposes. impossible. Any attempt to do so would probably break up the union. So, unless you want to destroy the village in order to save the village, best focus on reforming the rules.

[Jas09]

I'm with the "fix the Senate" guys, even if it's not in the spirit of the OP.

And I don't think you even need to scrap the filibuster entirely, just neuter it a bit. Something like the "declining filibuster" option (where you need 60 votes to break it, then 55, then just a majority - perhaps separated by a few days or even a week) keeps the "enhanced debate" feature without paralyzing the body. Then add in a rule that executive and judicial appointments cannot be filibustered. Suddenly the body is a lot more useful.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

There's nothing wrong with the Senate that scrapping the filibuster wouldn't cure. If a minority party has 40 members and are willing to vote as a block, they can paralyze the entire government.

Right now, that is. In theory, we could also be held hostage to a couple tens of millions of intransigent voters who want special treatment (i.e. tax dollars) for their low population states. Fortunately, while that is an issue, it's not currently big enough of one to prevent substantive work from being done if the filibuster were reformed.

But it does exacerbate the effects of the filibuster. A small minority of the population can throw a tantrum and try to wreck the government because they don't realize how much they are subsidized by the federal government via infrastructure, ag subsidies, defense spending, and welfare, and delude themselves into thinking that they made it on their own simply because their state taxes are low. Their state taxes are low because the federal government is paying for everything!

[2sense]

I would go with neutering. We could get the Senate to pass a rule stating that all legislation passed by the House in the first session will be agreed to by the Senate at the end of the second session unless it is voted down beforehand. In this way the filibuster could be made to work in favor of the passage of legislation (after a longer period of deliberation along the lines that Malden Capell suggested). Regarding the malaportionment the Senate could change their rules to form a Steering Committee that must approve bringing business to the Floor (though the agenda would still be set by the Majority Leader). The Steering Committee could be seated directly proportionate to the general population or by giving each Senator as many votes for seating it as they received when elected to office.

Obviously we couldn't expect the current wingnuts on the Supreme Court to allow such sensible changes. It would take a vastly different court makeup for this to go through. And just getting the Senate to neuter itself would require a massive wave of support. So it's pretty far fetched. But it could be done without amending the Constitution.

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

There's nothing wrong with the Senate that scrapping the filibuster wouldn't cure. If a minority party has 40 members and are willing to vote as a block, they can paralyze the entire government.

Nonsense. It's not just the filibuster and it's not just that certain citizens are privileged with extra representation. The very existence of a second legislative body creates more hoops to jump through. As the speed of change in the world increases this becomes more and more of a liability. (One that other advanced nations haven't saddled themselves with.) As if that wasn't bad enough we have finally, after 200 years of paternalisitic democracy, have produced mature political parties separated along distinct ideological lines. With the clear differences between parties obstructionism will only increase. Essentially we have two choices about the US legislature. Either we will make it functional or more and more power will shift over to the Executive. Simply removing the filibuster is not enough. There are just too many extra opportunities in the Senate with additional committees and leadership, not to mention holds, for legislation to be held up. And lets not forget how malaportioned it is giving powerbrokers in the square states undeserved political clout. We have Representatives. We don't need Senators.

[John Mace]

If you want to consolidate power in Wash DC, you have to live with something like the Senate. You are never going to get a large, geographically and demographically diverse country like the US to form a strictly democratic union. Instead, ask yourself why it is necessary to consolidate so much power in the federal government in the first place.

IOW, if you don't want the fine people of Mississippi telling you what you can and cannot do in your state, then don't let them. Don't want them holding up UHC? Do it in your state, where you don't need their permission.

[MOIDALIZE]

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

Speaking as a Brit, I'm a fan of bicameralism, as untrammeled rule by a single chamber is a recipe for bad government, but at the same time I understand your frustration with 'absolute' bicameralism as the US has.

I'd prefer the US switch to 'asymmetrical' bicameralism - the House as the forum of the people is made stronger, and the Senate reduced to a delaying power of 1 or two sessions, apart from crucial subjects (such as treaties or otherwise) which a veto would still be appreciated (or not - superiority of the House in all matters would also be fine).

I like that idea. I could envision reforms that create a more defined division of labor between the two chambers. For example, the number of representatives in the House could be quadrupled, they'd be limited to one 2-year term (or one 4-year term; or two 2-year terms), and they'd do the business of legislating. The Senate could be limited in sessions or subjects, and the rest of their time would be spent being the learned elders of the government: forming committees, holding hearings, and exploring the more strategic issues of the country.

Unfortunately for any reform, more Americans can name the Three Stooges than can name the branches of our federal government. Ending the filibuster has the benefit of being simple to explain.

[silenus]

I disagree with the entire premise of the OP. There is nothing wrong with the Senate. There really is nothing wrong with the filibuster, either. If anybody in the Senate had any honor or dignity, they would make anybody threatening a filibuster go through with it. Completely. That would end the games pretty quickly.

You want Washington to be better? Start by electing better people.

I also support any organization at the national level that is measured and staid. Change isn't necessarily good, you know. And if a law is such that 40% of the population oppose it, isn't that an indicator that it is a bad law? It is only because we insist on electing demagogues and assholes that the system is "failing."

[Saint Cad]

The only change I would make is repealing the 17th Amendment so that laws have to be a compromise between what the people (House) and states as members of a Federalist union (Senate) want.

[Wild Packanig]

A filibuster isn't always a bad thing. The United States is a Republic to protect the minority, otherwise the majority would create laws that would trample them. Often, people find themselves as minorities in one way, and majorities in another, or they switch around a bit. A filibuster makes a nice open point, even if it cannot stop a bill from becoming law, that a party or group is opposed to a bill.

I don't want to sound like a radical, but if you were really looking to cleanse or purge the Senate or House you would actually need to kill them all. As crazy as this sounds, there has been times when cities have fired whole police departments because of corruption. Doesn't the Tree of Liberty need to be water sometimes with the blood of patriots and tyrants?

[Ibn Warraq]

I also don't understand the hatred for the Senate in comparison to the House of Representatives.

I actually prefer the Senate because it's not nearly dominated by ideologues the way the House is largely because Senators, with some exceptions, represent much larger and more diverse populations than Congressmen who represent smaller and less diverse districts(and I'm not just talking about race/ethnicity).

As for the filibuster, I'm not opposed to it in principal, since I'm not a fan of majoritarianism and I tend to feel that if you can't get a solid majority to support a law, as opposed to a bare minimum then perhaps its not a good law, but I do think it's gotten far too easy to impose.

I wouldn't mind bringing back the old days where in order to impose a filibuster you'd actually have to have Senators speak for hours on end.

[BrainGlutton]

In the last chapter of The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution is Paralyzing Democracy, Daniel Lazare envisioned a political crisis that would end with the Senate still in existence, but reduced to mostly ceremonial functions like the House of Lords. So mote it be.

[Skammer]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

I also don't understand the hatred for the Senate in comparison to the House of Representatives.

I actually prefer the Senate because it's not nearly dominated by ideologues the way the House is largely because Senators, with some exceptions, represent much larger and more diverse populations than Congressmen who represent smaller and less diverse districts(and I'm not just talking about race/ethnicity).

I totally agree. I shudder to think what our current House would have done since 2010 without the Senate to force some moderation. Two houses is good; it reinforces our system of checks and balances.

I also agree that the filibuster rules need changing so that the whole body cannot be held hostage indefinitely by the minority.

[Sailboat]

Originally Posted by silenus

I disagree with the entire premise of the OP.

I pretty much do, too. Allowing for the fact that I don't like current politics and trends, I don't see the fundamental structure as the problem.

I also find the OP's assertions that the Senate is "inept" to be a pretty poor basis for discussion. What specifically is bad about the Senate? That it passes too much legislation? That it hardly passes any? Moneyed interests? There's a lot to dislike, but I don't know what parts the OP doesn't like.

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

The only change I would make is repealing the 17th Amendment so that laws have to be a compromise between what the people (House) and states as members of a Federalist union (Senate) want.

Why do the states matter at all? Or rather, why should a superorganism called "the Commonwealth [State] of Virginia" have any rights that preclude the rights of individual humans? And if so, why don't counties and municipalities have rights equivalent to those of states?

That's a thing I've never understood about "States' Rights" thinking. Sticking with Virginia as an example, it's filled with "States' Rights"-minded people who fume at their perception that the Federal government is taxing away money from people and giving it to people far away, and that the Federal government is not responsive to the will of "the Commonwealth."

But these exact same people support taxing the region known as Northern Virginia, the Commonwealth's principal money-producing region, and distributing the money to people far away. And they routinely ignore/override the expressed will of Northern Virginia. What magic makes it okay for them to do to lower rungs on the ladder of government what they find so tyrannical when it's done by the rung above them?

[Lago Ys-Transform]

Okay, let's back up for a bit.

1. The Senate isn't just inept because of its recent intransigence or filibustering rules. More obviously, it's inept because of its incredibly lopsided representation. How would you feel about a bill that allowed people of a certain family line to arbitrarily have five different votes to cast for the House Representative? If you feel bad about it, why do you tolerate more extreme antidemocracy in the Senate? Less obviously is the fact that the world has become considerably more complex -- back in the 18th century it was possible for men like Henry Clay to be reasonably informed about almost every pertinent issue. Today it's almost impossible. But the average power of the individual senator has only increased over time. Both because the U.S. government is much more powerful WRT the world stage and also because the U.S. government assumes more power within. The U.S. Senate needs to seriously be about five times the size it is right now so that specialized experts can concentrate onto committees like in the House. Otherwise you get ignorant government and/or abdication of responsibilities to an outside party.

2. The whole 'compromise to maximize consent' argument is really lacking in my opinion. First of all, the Senate isn't aligned democratically so there's no guarantee that whatever passes the Senate maximizes consent. In fact it's more likely to decrease it. Second of all, the idea shows a ridiculous amount of omission bias. Not getting a particular piece of legislation done always benefits some interest. The North and South disagreeing on where the transcontinental railroad and therefore not getting one build at all doesn't punish both parties equally; and there will be some parties who will benefit more from not having a railroad at all. Anti-majoritarian governments, even if they refuse to ingratiate themselves with the kind of poisonous compromise Hamilton and Madison lampooned, empower minority interests as long as they're in favor of the 'do nothing' solution.

It took 10 years between the Supreme Court delivered Brown vs. Board of Education and the 1964 Civil Rights Act being passed and it's precisely because of that blinkered 'seek compromise' function. In the meantime, that was an unnecessary extra 10 years of human rights abuses. Moreover, part of the reason why Congress has almost entirely surrendered modern foreign policy to the President is because world events move too quickly for legislative bodies to react in time -- this leads to a, in my opinion, dangerous concentration of power into the hands of the executive branch.

Originally Posted by tim-n-va

That seems to be the crux of the issue. I'm not sure it is established that pre-nationalist thinking is a bad thing.

It is when it impedes the functioning of democracy.

[Miller]

I'm kind of amazed that anyone would look at the American congress, and decide that its the Senate that needs to go.

[silenus]

Screw democracy. The will of the mob is not the way to run a country.

As for Point 2 - exactly how will scrapping the Senate solve your foreign policy "problem?" (I disagree strongly that it's a problem to begin with.)

[Lobohan]

I don't have a cite handy, but I recall hearing that 11% of the population elects enough Senators to lock up congress.

Think about that. Not only does a state with half a million people get as many Senators as California or Texas, but even when you massively handicap the high population states with the 2-fer rule, you still need less than 50 votes to stop everything in its tracks. With the filibuster 40 votes is all you need. A tiny sliver of the population controls the country.

11% of the population can stop the will of the other 89%. That's horrid.

Especially if you've spent any time in those states with very, very low populations.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Miller

I'm kind of amazed that anyone would look at the American congress, and decide that its the Senate that needs to go.

That's what I keep saying and thinking when this topic comes up. Do people not realize how many flat-out morons and lunatic get elected to the House? There are a couple in the Senate and some Senators are badly out of touch, but there is a much larger proportion of out-to-lunch Michele Bachmanns and Cynthia McKinneys and Allen Wests and (at least on some issues) Ron Pauls in the House - people who not only are nowhere near the mainstream of political discourse, but who make no pretense at even trying to figure out where that is and just represent the small and deeply partisan areas that elected them. (And no, I don't think the House should be abolished either.) I'm coming to the reluctant conclusion that filibuster needs to be changed or eliminated since apparently Senators are too partisan or dumb to help themselves at this point.

[Shagnasty]

Originally Posted by silenus

Screw democracy. The will of the mob is not the way to run a country.

As for Point 2 - exactly how will scrapping the Senate solve your foreign policy "problem?" (I disagree strongly that it's a problem to begin with.)

I agree. Somewhere in elementary school, people heard or misunderstood that the U.S. is a democracy and then interpreted that to mean that more democracy is always a worthwhile goal. It isn't. The U.S. has a republican form of government with some aspects of democracy needed to support that. Someone has to do a lot better than more democracy = good to convince me that there is a particular problem or solution that more democracy will solve.

I don't think there is much wrong with the U.S. Senate either. Most of the arguments against it come down to it not being purely democratic but it was never meant to be. That is a feature, not a bug.

Someone pointed out that other advanced countries don't have the Senate to worry with. Where? Like Western Europe? Somehow, I thought those types of arguments would not be made these days for self-evident reasons.

[Malden Capell]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

In the last chapter of The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution is Paralyzing Democracy, Daniel Lazare envisioned a political crisis that would end with the Senate still in existence, but reduced to mostly ceremonial functions like the House of Lords. So mote it be.

Intriguing, although I'd comment that the House of Lords isn't purely ceremonial. It has a real impact on British lawmaking, but relies on convincing the Commons to its own viewpoint rather than coercing it into concessions.

[Randvek]

Originally Posted by Marley23

That's what I keep saying and thinking when this topic comes up. Do people not realize how many flat-out morons and lunatic get elected to the House? There are a couple in the Senate and some Senators are badly out of touch, but there is a much larger proportion of out-to-lunch Michele Bachmanns and Cynthia McKinneys and Allen Wests and (at least on some issues) Ron Pauls in the House - people who not only are nowhere near the mainstream of political discourse, but who make no pretense at even trying to figure out where that is and just represent the small and deeply partisan areas that elected them. (And no, I don't think the House should be abolished either.) I'm coming to the reluctant conclusion that filibuster needs to be changed or eliminated since apparently Senators are too partisan or dumb to help themselves at this point.

IMHO, the levels of stupidity that occur in the House are a direct result of the bizarre redistricting methods we use; we actively encourage people running for Congress to be hyper-partisan by making so many "safe" districts. But then again, that's also why the House is so much more racially diverse.

[MOIDALIZE]

Originally Posted by Marley23

That's what I keep saying and thinking when this topic comes up. Do people not realize how many flat-out morons and lunatic get elected to the House?

Was it the lunatics in the House who took a public option off the table? Were they the ones who left dozens of federal judgeships vacant, the Federal Reserve without all of its governors, and Elizabeth Warren running for office instead of being in charge of the consumer protection agency that she pushed for? Can you remind me who it was that preserved the carried-interest tax break?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

Speaking as a Brit, I'm a fan of bicameralism, as untrammeled rule by a single chamber is a recipe for bad . . .

Why?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Shagnasty

Someone pointed out that other advanced countries don't have the Senate to worry with. Where? Like Western Europe? Somehow, I thought those types of arguments would not be made these days for self-evident reasons.

They're not so self-evident. A federal-bicameral national legislature has not insulated America from economic crises.

[Shagnasty]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

They're not so self-evident. A federal-bicameral national legislature has not insulated America from economic crises.

No it hasn't but America is still running strong under the same Constitution for about 225 years.Western Europe is historically a basket-case on par with the Middle-East today that happened to have a good decades long run after WWII but is about about to go into semi or total meltdown. The U.S.will be hit by their follies but we will do much better and survive intact. Some economic crises are to be expected but let's not model ourselves after countries that have never managed a good run as long as ours.

It should be self-evident that the worship by some liberal types of Western European practices are completely inappropriate now in terms of facts and philosophy. Thank goodness I live in the U.S. under its stable Constitution. While the U.S. is still in the #1 position on lots of counts including stability, it is frankly retarded to initiate radical reforms when no other country has ever done it better.

[al27052]

Letting a bunch of elderly white Idahoans, Wyomingites, Utahns, North and South Dakotans, and Alaskans have many times the voting power of the rest of the country is probably a bit unbalanced.

Perhaps the Senate should have the same number of members as the House, but also based on population. This would avoid gerrymandering, while simultaneously balancing out the excess power that the elderly white voters from the states with smaller populations.

Why do I say elderly and white? AS we all know, they are more likely to 1. be registered to vote, and 2. actually have time to vote on a damn Tuesday.

And the heck with voting on Tuesday. That's just pandering to the elderly. Let's vote on Saturday, or create a mandatory federal half-day off so people can vote. We need a way to dilute the voting power of the elderly. It's not fair to the young.

[John Mace]

What makes you think young people are going to vote if they half a day off instead of just going to the movies? It's ridiculously easy to vote in the US for anyone who has half an interest in doing so. Most people in the US can either vote early in person or just vote by mail. Make it possible for everyone to vote by mail. Problem solved. I doubt that would result in any significant increase in the youth vote (or any other vote, for that matter).

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by John Mace

What makes you think young people are going to vote if they half a day off instead of just going to the movies? It's ridiculously easy to vote in the US for anyone who has half an interest in doing so. Most people in the US can either vote early in person or just vote by mail. Make it possible for everyone to vote by mail. Problem solved. I doubt that would result in any significant increase in the youth vote (or any other vote, for that matter).

Do you not believe in incentives?

If you had to take a day off work and wait in a huge line to buy a smoothie, do you think smoothie consumption would go down? Yes or no.

If they had mail in smoothie chits, that would help of course.

[Chronos]

Western Europe is historically a basket-case on par with the Middle-East today that happened to have a good decades long run after WWII but is about about to go into semi or total meltdown.

When and if that happens, then you can argue that it's self-evident.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Do you not believe in incentives?

If you had to take a day off work and wait in a huge line to buy a smoothie, do you think smoothie consumption would go down? Yes or no.

If they had mail in smoothie chits, that would help of course.

First of all, if voting is as important to you as getting a smoothie, then I don't really care if you have trouble voting.

Second, exactly how many people in the US have to take the whole day off to vote?

Third, most people in the US can vote early or by mail.

Fourth, I just said I'm happy to make that (the third thing) universal.

Fifth, the idea that there are hordes of people who would vote if only it were easier is... naive, at best.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by John Mace

First of all, if voting is as important to you as getting a smoothie, then I don't really care if you have trouble voting.

Second, exactly how many people in the US have to take the whole day off to vote?

Third, most people in the US can vote early or by mail.

Fourth, I just said I'm happy to make that (the third thing) universal.

Fifth, the idea that there are hordes of people who would vote if only it were easier is... naive, at best.

So you don't believe incentives work?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

So you don't believe incentives work?

I believe that incentives can work. But you're not talking about an incentive. You're saying there are significant disincentives to voting. I'm not seeing it.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by John Mace

First of all, if voting is as important to you as getting a smoothie, then I don't really care if you have trouble voting.

Second, exactly how many people in the US have to take the whole day off to vote?

Third, most people in the US can vote early or by mail.

Fourth, I just said I'm happy to make that (the third thing) universal.

Fifth, the idea that there are hordes of people who would vote if only it were easier is... naive, at best.

Sixth, there are still people fighting for voter-suppression.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Sixth, there are still people fighting for voter-suppression.

I rarely read links without quotes. Too often they don't say what the poster thinks they say. If you have something you want us to see, quote it.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I rarely read links without quotes. Too often they don't say what the poster thinks they say. If you have something you want us to see, quote it.

Just two weeks ago a Rasmussen poll showed that 64 percent of Americans believe voter fraud exists. That poll was a major hit with the folks at the pro–voter ID True the Vote conference held over the weekend in Houston. No less than three speakers mentioned it to the crowd of roughly 200 attendees. According to conference host and True the Vote president Catherine Engelbrecht, thirty-two states were represented here for their third national summit, but it was clear most in the room were from Texas. Many appeared to be part of one Tea Party group or another (True the Vote is the 501c3 arm of the King Street Patriots, a Texas Tea Party group), and none seemed to be aware that they were far from losing the war on voting.

They were stuck in a reality that was unfamiliar to anyone who’s been paying attention to voter issues. Speakers—among them Heritage Foundation’s Hans Von Spakovsky, Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton and former title-challenged DOJ employee J. Christian Adams—spoke about the voter ID cause as if they were failing, as if sixteen states didn’t pass photo voter ID laws, most of them in just the past eighteen months. As if a federal court didn’t just validate a strict photo voter ID law in Arizona the week before the conference.

<snip>

If so many people believe voter fraud exists, it’s only because these groups have been successful in spreading myths while suppressing the truth, which is that you have a better chance of finding Michelle Obama in a Burger King than you will find voter fraud in a poll booth. All weekend they recycled anecdotes about voter registration problems—animated by James O’Keefe’s wannabe-Borat-but-missing-the-point films. Registration errors also occur at insignificant rates, and photo voter ID laws do little to address that. But people see the O’Keefe shenanigans or hear Moncrief talk about evil ACORN plots to take over the world by registering Jive S. Turkey to vote, and they become convinced that voter fraud exists.

From SourceWatch:

Voter Fraud and Voter I.D. Laws

True the Vote's website portrays voter fraud as largely a Democractic party problem. It routinely runs stories on election fraud being perpetrated by "liberals,"[9] or "Democrats" [10] but has, to date, never run a story on Republican or Conservative instances of voter fraud.

Like many groups pushing for strict Voter ID Laws, True the Vote claims that Voter Fraud is widespread and deliberate, and largely substantiates these claims through individual testimony. [11] Most serious studies conducted on voter fraud suggest that it is rare and when it does occur it is accidental. [12] [13] Englebrecht herself has testified before congress on behalf of the king street patriots, similar claims of mass voter fraud. [14]

True the Vote argues for stronger Voter ID Laws in every State, and resists attempts to relax or remove Voter ID laws. On December 13th, 2011, they held a rally in Austen Texas to support a stricter ID law passed earlier that year. [15] On January 20th, 2011 they held a similar rally to protest the invalidation of a South Carolina law requiring picture ID's at the polls (The Justice Department is empowered to invalidate voting laws in South Carolina due to a provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act.) Both Rallies strongly criticized Attorney General Eric Holder.

In 2011, True the Vote posted an article on its website claiming that US attorney General Eric Holder supported a plan by the NAACP "to involve the United Nations in U.S. elections." referencing a protest the NAACP held across the street from the UN in December of 2011, and a related petition filed with the UN. Holder gave the protest and the petition no formal support, but True the Vote's press release made it seem like Holder was advocating direct UN involvement in American elections, asking ""Are you ready to have U.N. blue helmets outside your polling place?" This article earned True the Vote a "pants on fire" rating from Politifact.com. [16] Blue Helmets resembling those worn by the UN Peacekeeping forces are now commonly worn at True the Vote rallies.


2011-2012 Wisconsin Recall Effort

In 2012, True the Vote joined several other Tea Party groups in "Verify the Recall", an effort that opposes the 2012 recall of Wisconsin governor Scott Walker. True the Vote provided software which it had previously applied to check signatures in petitions in Texas. [17] In order to electronically check over 1 million petition signatures, which had previously been posted online by Wisconsin's Government Accountability Board [18] True the Vote recruited thousands of volunteers (mostly out of state) to manually enter signatures into True the Vote's electronic database. True the Vote claims to have recruited over 13,000 volunteers. [19] True the Vote has stated that this effort is both "nonpartisan" [20] and "not about politics" [21] but their website has run at least two stories suggesting that fraud is "rampant" in the recall effort, and frame the effort as decidedly political. In their own words "we should not believe the claims of union-supporters and anti-Walker operatives who say that they collected more than one million signatures on petitions to recall Governor Scott Walker." [22].

On February 28th, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker called for the data gathered by the "Verify the Recall" effort to be used as an official challenge of the recall.[23] This data was gathered and compiled entirely by True the Vote. True the Vote's executive summary claimed that only 534,865 signatures gathered during the recall effort were valid. [24]. There is evidence that True the Vote used a flawed process to discount signatures on the ballot, and that most of the signatures they discounted are, in fact, accurate.[25]

[BrainGlutton]

Furthermore (TTV press release):

HOUSTON, May 16, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is being released by True the Vote:

WHO: Coming on the heels of its successful National Summit in April 2012, True the Vote will provide Election Observer Training sessions in eight locations throughout Wisconsin on Saturday, May 19, 2012 in advance of the June 5th, 2012 recall elections of Governor Scott Walker.

WHAT: True the Vote will partner with a coalition of Patriotic groups across the state to train 1,000 election observers for Wisconsin's June 5th Recall Election and ensure that their election process is free and fair.

Are these going to be the kind of "election observers" who challenge would-be voters with caging lists? We'll see. And we'll see whom they challenge. Should get interesting.

[Snupzilla]

Originally Posted by Lago Ys-Transform

I'm not going to mince words here. The U.S. Senate is laughably inept and should be gotten rid of. Both in function and principle. It's an artifact of pre-nationalist thinking and shows. It's woefully anti-democratic and shows.

Agreed on all points, but do we really want the House controlling a branch of government? Thanks to gerrymandering, small districts, and a two year election cycle, the house is stocked full of crazy people even more inept than the Senate. At least they can't redraw state lines to create safe districts.

[2sense]

The people pointing out the behavior of the House are missing the fact that its members are operating within the current constitutional framework. If we didn't have a Senate then the current House wouldn't work the way it does. The way it works now is that members get to stand up and spout off about whatever divorced from reality rhetoric they wish because their speech effects primarily their own electoral prospects. They can't act upon those crazy impulses (except negatively which is why the debt ceiling has become such a clusterfuck) since compromise on legislation must be reached in the Senate.

If instead we only had the House then the crazies would get to actually enact their agenda. Sure that would be bad in the short term but once people saw the effects they would vote the wackos out of office and we would be done with them and their antics. Instead reality never smacks them in the face because they are insulated by our constitutional system. So when you see politicians toeing an insane party line you have our checks and balances to blame. When you deny an organization responsibility you shouldn't be surprised to find it behaves irresponsibly.

[2sense]

That's not to say that the House couldn't do with a big dose of reform as well.

[The Second Stone]

Scrapping the filibuster and all the other slow down rules would outright fix it in my opinion.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by MOIDALIZE

Was it the lunatics in the House who took a public option off the table?

No. It's the lunatics in the House who think Democrats are Communists, push September 11th conspiracy theories, want to return the U.S. to the gold standard to prevent the rise of the Amero, and think HPV vaccinations cause mental retardation. Maybe you can see a qualitative difference between that and a political compromise, however regrettable that compromise might have been. I don't think the Senate is close to perfect, but I do think it's less of a zoo. If you wanted one chamber and any kind of sane government you'd have to reform the House almost beyond recognition.

[jtgain]

The Senate was part of the deal that some people want to re-neg on. No way would states like Vermont and Rhode Island have agreed to join the U.S. if their voices would be drown out by more populous states. The U.S. gets the benefit of being united by making this trade off.

[TriPolar]

You have to consider the results of having no Senate and maintaining the current rules of the House. The merest majority will decide the law, and the Union will dissolve in short order as one side dominates the other. The Constitution was designed to (or possibly accidently) slow down the process of government and as a result make it subject to the democratic process of electing representation. I don't like the way things work now, but I prefer it to the inevitable majoritarian rule.

[2sense]

Originally Posted by jtgain

The Senate was part of the deal that some people want to re-neg on. No way would states like Vermont and Rhode Island have agreed to join the U.S. if their voices would be drown out by more populous states. The U.S. gets the benefit of being united by making this trade off.

Those states aren't good examples. Neither participated in the federal convention and were left as small adjacent states outside the Union. Not an attractive situation. Perhaps they would have refused to join despite economic pressure to do so if the Senate also had proportional representation as people like James Madison and Gouverneur Morris fought so hard for but I doubt it. Much better examples are Maryland, Delaware, and New Hampshire whose constitutional delegates did threaten to scuttle the Constitution so successfully that the "large state" nationalists eventually did go along.

In any case the opinions of Americans long dead don't seem to make the case for the continued benefits of the arrangement. Southern states would never have joined a Union that outlawed slavery. That's not much of an argument in favor of repealing the 13th Amendment in the name of unity.
-

Originally Posted by TriPolar

You have to consider the results of having no Senate and maintaining the current rules of the House. The merest majority will decide the law, and the Union will dissolve in short order as one side dominates the other. The Constitution was designed to (or possibly accidently) slow down the process of government and as a result make it subject to the democratic process of electing representation. I don't like the way things work now, but I prefer it to the inevitable majoritarian rule.

If we must consider then consider the wisdom of assuming that the representatives of some Americans would tyrannize the other Americans if they had their way. Consider instead the possibility that electing a government with the authority to enact their mandate would provide the benefit of Americans being able to judge for themselves the results of that agenda and exercise that judgement in the voting booth at the next election. Consider that unicameralism is hardly a radical new idea. Consider Nebraska which has had such a government for decades yet hasn't devolved into tyranny. If we are compelled to consider then consider something useful. Consider something other then our prejudices.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by silenus

Screw democracy. The will of the mob is not the way to run a country.

As for Point 2 - exactly how will scrapping the Senate solve your foreign policy "problem?" (I disagree strongly that it's a problem to begin with.)

And I don't understand anyone who thinks it's better to let a minority rule than a majority. A mob of fewer people, each with proportionally more power, is far worse. Either way, the worst case scenario is that the people in charge get what they want, and if that's a minority, that means fewer people happy than if it were a majority.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by 2sense

Perhaps they would have refused to join despite economic pressure to do so if the Senate also had proportional representation as people like James Madison and Gouverneur Morris fought so hard for but I doubt it.

Cite? I didn't think PR had been invented then.