# Do Away With The U.S. Senate?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [August 29, 2006, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595 "2006-08-29T00:04:16Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/41 "2006-08-29T13:19:25Z")
> [@Giles](#):
>
> That’s true enough, but it’s not the reason for the Senate. The Senate was adopted because without it the smaller states would not have ratified the Constitution. So some such compromise would have been necessary regadless of the wisdom and selflessness of the Founding Male Parents.
True as well. But the result has in my opinion worked out very well. I’m grateful that the small states held out for this provision.
---
### Author:  [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/42 "2006-08-29T13:49:06Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#):
>
> I think things are fine just the way they are. Oh, and one other thing: there are two ways to get rid of the Senate. The first is that the Congress drafts an amendment calling for the dissolution of the Senate and 2/3rds of the states approve. The chances of that: less than zero. The other way is that the states themselves hold a convention and then submit their resolution for approval. The chances of that: even less than the first option.
Er, the chances of both are **exactly** zero.
> [@Article V](#):
>
> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that **no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate**.
The only possible mechanism is a special convention requiring unanimous consent.
---
### Author:  [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/43 "2006-08-29T13:53:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> Furthermore, I rather suspect the House would approve things like you mention less often if the Senate weren’t there; as things stand, they can approve crazy amendments and look good to certain of their constituents without running the risk they’ll actually get anywhere.
This is like ripping the handrails and grab bars out of a house to encourage the occupants to be more careful.
---
### Author:  [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/44 "2006-08-29T14:14:40Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> Furthermore, I rather suspect the House would approve things like you mention less often if the Senate weren’t there; as things stand, they can approve crazy amendments and look good to certain of their constituents without running the risk they’ll actually get anywhere.
I’m a little unsure how you came to this conclusion. So long as Representatives only represent their districts I imagine they’ll always push for legislation that their voters approve of whether it has a chance in hell of passing or not. After all they could still say “I tried to get this through but those bastards in Texas won’t let it pass.”
Marc
---
### Author:  [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/45 "2006-08-29T15:22:04Z")
I do not see the problem this move is expected to solve. The present system seems to work. Why risk so much for a potential slight improvement?
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/46 "2006-08-29T16:43:39Z")
> [@Jim B.](#):
>
> Has the time finally come to do away with the U.S. Senate? The U.S. Senate is based on the antiquated notion that all states should have an equal say. This was originally planned so big states wouldn’t have more of a say than smaller states. But there **is** a good reason why big states should have more of say than small states. They’re bigger, get it? Giving bigger states more say is more _democratic_. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?
As \*\*BG \*\*noted, we’ve done this before and my position hasn’t changed. See his previous thread if you’re interested. I just wanted to point out that you haven’t provided any supporting arguments for the assertion that the notion is “antiquated”. The argument you do offer was just as true 225 years ago as it is now.
---
### Author:  [@Mayo\_Speaks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mayo_Speaks)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/47 "2006-08-29T22:24:06Z")
> [@Steve MB](#):
>
> Er, the chances of both are **exactly** zero.
>
> The only possible mechanism is a special convention requiring unanimous consent.
> [@US Constitution](#):
>
> no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
IANAL, but if the senate were abolished, then every state would still have equal representation (namely, 0 representation). Could a legal argument be made that no state is denied equal suffrage, since no state is favored over any other with the dissolution of the senate?
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/48 "2006-08-29T23:23:51Z")
> [@Paul in Saudi](#):
>
> I do not see the problem this move is expected to solve. The present system seems to work. Why risk so much for a potential slight improvement?
I’m suspicious of those motivated to elimiate the Senate. I suspect the real problem they have is with federalism, which I think we need more of, not less. The Senate is one of the few bastions of federalism that the courts can’t interfere with, and even then it’s an indirect form of federalism at best.
---
### Author:  [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2006, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/49 "2006-08-30T05:26:05Z")
I’ve long thought we should do away with the Senate but given the aforementioned constitutional difficulties in doing so we could settle for following the British example and just defanging our upper house. Circumventing current constitutional conventions being [something of a hobby of mine](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7539992&postcount=119), I’ve figured out how to do it.
Instead of a constitutional amendment all we need is 2/3 of the Senate to amend their rules so that the Senate automatically passes every bill passed by the House in a previous session of the same Congress unless a motion of objection is agreed to. The supermajority required to end debate with a cloture vote would also be returned to 2/3. Thus everything passed by the House in the first and second sessions would pass the Senate before the end of the congressional term unless 2/3 of the sitting Senators agreed to block it. The Senate could still pass bills sooner, assuming they could achieve cloture.
## This would put the onus of legislating squarely on the House of Representatives with the Senators only able to put on the brakes if there was considerable opposition in their ranks. It would also have the pleasing side effect of encouraging more consensus judicial nominees as more bipartisan support would be needed to end a filibuster. I think it’s a good idea but I have to admit I haven’t considered it thoroughly yet so if anyone spots some holes, let me know. The big one being it won’t be easy to get 67 Senators to vote to neuter themselves. I also wonder, for instance, about Senators seeking to preserve their power by playing up minor disagreements in order to get to a conference committee. Need to think more on that.
Just my 2sense
---
### Author:  [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2006, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/50 "2006-08-30T13:08:21Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> Actually, **Bob55,** democracy is three sheep and one wolf voting on what to have for dinner. IRL the sheep outnumber the wolves and democracy is the only defense they’ve got.
I am a devout atheist with extremely liberal social views and moderate fiscal views.
Do you think I’m the wolf among three sheep or the sheep among three wolves?
I mean, it’s not like any of my views are even _humored_ in government now, but I’m afraid in an absolutely democracy they’d be after me with a pitchfork.
---
### Author:  [@save\_that\_for\_real\_estate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/save_that_for_real_estate)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2006, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/51 "2006-08-30T14:44:54Z")
> [@Marley23](#):
>
> Ding ding ding. I’d rather turn the whole government over to a horde of drunken bonobos than make the House of Representatives into the only branch of the legislature.
Please tell me more about your bonobo-cracy. It sounds loaded with potential.
---
### Author:  [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2006, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/52 "2006-08-30T17:16:55Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> How is the Senate any more “deliberative” than the House?
The Senate’s “districts” are not gerrymandered like the House’s are. This forces each Senator to represent a larger cross-section of their constituency. Maybe “circumspect” is a better adjective to describe the Senate than “deliberative”.
Yet another reason to change how House districts are determined. But until that it is done, removing the Senate would be folly.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2006, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/53 "2006-08-30T17:40:54Z")
> [@John Mace](#):
>
> I suspect the real problem they have is with federalism, which I think we need more of, not less.
Why do we need more federalism? Reagan had a “new federalism” policy but we got nothing good out of it.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2006, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/54 "2006-08-30T17:48:38Z")
> [@Cisco](#):
>
> I am a devout atheist with extremely liberal social views and moderate fiscal views.
>
> Do you think I’m the wolf among three sheep or the sheep among three wolves?
>
> I mean, it’s not like any of my views are even _humored_ in government now, but I’m afraid in an absolutely democracy they’d be after me with a pitchfork.
I was speaking in class-interest terms, which are the only terms in which the “sheep and wolves” metaphor is really a compelling one. As for your particular set of views, do you think you seem them represented any better in the Senate than the House at present? If you want fair political representation for your set of views, what you need is a PR-based multiparty system (see post #20), which would be significantly **more** democratic than what we’ve got now.
---
### Author:  [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2006, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/55 "2006-08-30T17:51:06Z")
> [@Cisco](#):
>
> I am a devout atheist with extremely liberal social views and moderate fiscal views.
>
> Do you think I’m the wolf among three sheep or the sheep among three wolves?
>
> I mean, it’s not like any of my views are even _humored_ in government now, but I’m afraid in an absolutely democracy they’d be after me with a pitchfork.
We aren’t discussing pure democracy but representative democracy. The Bill of Rights won’t disappear if we move to a unicameral federal legislature. Looks to me as though **BG** is refering not to social views but rather economic interests. Assuming you aren’t one of those with enough economic clout to exploit your fellow Americans you _are_ one of the sheep. Baa.
---
### Author:  [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)
#### Post date: [August 31, 2006, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/56 "2006-08-31T15:37:56Z")
We can’t do away with the Senate for the myriad of reasons already mentioned, but it does need to have its power cut a bit. It is one thing to be a check on legislation and another to be an impassible roadblock. It seems to me that the relatively few number of senators gives too much power to them. Well monied interests that oppose legislation favored by eastern big city dwellers need only bribe - I mean, make campaign contributions to - senators from sparsely populated western states, whose voters are indifferent to the legislation, in order to bottle it up in committee. I don’t know how to rectify this exactly, but I’d start by saying that campaign contributions can only be made from a state’s constituents.
---
### Author:  [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)
#### Post date: [August 31, 2006, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/57 "2006-08-31T15:54:31Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#):
>
> We can’t do away with the Senate for the myriad of reasons already mentioned, but it does need to have its power cut a bit. It is one thing to be a check on legislation and another to be an impassible roadblock. It seems to me that the relatively few number of senators gives too much power to them. Well monied interests that oppose legislation favored by eastern big city dwellers need only bribe - I mean, make campaign contributions to - senators from sparsely populated western states, whose voters are indifferent to the legislation, in order to bottle it up in committee. I don’t know how to rectify this exactly, but I’d start by saying that campaign contributions can only be made from a state’s constituents.
How about the voters paying attention and not re-electing Senators who participate in this sort of crap, if it’s that important an issue?
I mean, why is that an any more difficult process than trying to bring about the similar sea change that would be required to amend the Constitution or get the Senate to vote these kinds of restrictions on themselves?
---
### Author:  [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)
#### Post date: [August 31, 2006, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/58 "2006-08-31T18:52:19Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> I was speaking in class-interest terms, which are the only terms in which the “sheep and wolves” metaphor is really a compelling one.
Not so. If, for example, the “sheep” is somebody who like guns/porn/whatever and the “wolves” are busy-bodies who want to drive such eeeevil from their midst, the metaphor is compelling even if everyone involved has a net worth so equal that comparing them would come down to the lengths of their respective ball-of-string collections.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [September 1, 2006, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/59 "2006-09-01T03:04:46Z")
> [@Steve MB](#):
>
> If, for example, the “sheep” is somebody who like guns/porn/whatever and the “wolves” are busy-bodies who want to drive such eeeevil from their midst . . .
Then you would have to come up with a different metaphor. The sheep-wolf (prey-predator) relationship would not be relevant.
---
### Author:  [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)
#### Post date: [September 1, 2006, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/60 "2006-09-01T05:12:26Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> Then you would have to come up with a different metaphor. The sheep-wolf (prey-predator) relationship would not be relevant.
I think he’s right, and not just because I like his Carl Barks reference.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595.md?page=2)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595.md?page=4)