View Single Post
Old 06-06-2019, 12:37 PM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,411
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post

This is us building the case for changing that agreement. Making a counter case to that proposal is fine, but just repeating over and over again that that was the agreement made well over 200 years ago is rather pointless, and is really not relevant to the argument.
This gets to the heart of the problem.

Your "side" asserts, "We need to change the Senate."

"Why", the other side asks?

"Because it means some people have more political power than others simply because of geography."

"But that's intentional. Why should it be changed?"

"Because we don't think that's right."

Well, ok, we get that you and others think that there is something inherently "wrong" about the current situation. But that, in and of itself, isn't a reason for change. Establish how the current system creates poor results. How would abolishing the Senate produce a better set of laws for our country? Provide some analysis of situations in the relatively recent past where Congress would have produced a better result had it not had a Senate, but rather something else? In doing so, don't just offer up situations where something would have passed that you're particularly in love with politically, because keep in mind that the House can be controlled by a majority of the OTHER party, and absent a Senate, can pass legislation that you'd be politically opposed to vehemently.

All I see is a continued harping on the idea that somehow it's "wrong" to have a system like the Senate because not every person's "vote" is "equal". I don't personally think that's a compelling argument for change, for reasons that have been posted previously. And those reasons aren't just, "that's the way it's been done". They include perfectly good arguments about how interests of people in geographically diverse areas are protected by the current system, arguments that your side simply don't see as more important. Again, I get that, but you are the people agitating for change. Were the roles reversed, the burden would be on the other foot. It's not.