Plenty of countries get by with a single house. Since the senate is our legacy of the moribund House of Lords, does it serve any purpose other that to represent smaller states disproportionately? And is that even a valid goal any more?
Sure, unless you think elections should be decided by eleven or twelve of the largest cities.
For my money, it was idiotic to give way to a popular vote for Senators.
I’d say you do, considering how easily swayed the election-conscious House is. If you ditch the Senate, you’ll also have to change House elections from every two years to four or so, or else your legislature will operately solely out of short-term political gain, crashing from one extreme to the other.
Well, in the last few years, it has been the Senate that has kept us away from the horrors of flag-burning amendments, defining marriage as one-man-and-one-woman at the national level, cashiering a president on purely political grounds, and a few other atrocities. Having a senior body that is more deliberative to balance the hasty reactions of the polls-dominated House with that body’s impulse to be stupidly demagogic in nature seems to me to be a GOOD THING.
If you want to discuss the selection and make-up of the Senate, proposing a body that is more representative of population than geography, go ahead. However, proposing that the government be dominated by a bunch of guys who run for office every two years is just silly.
Except that since state legislatures can be gerrymandered, that would yield to results that did not accurately reflect the will of the people. In VA, the state legislature is 23/40 Republican Senators, and 57/100 Republican Delegates (both based on population). If they had decided, Webb would not have come very close to being elected, though as we saw he won narrowly. How is a popular vote for Senators idiotic?
It is the business of the Senate to represent the states, to be the truly deliberative body. It’s not without intent that the Senate has the extra duties of sitting as the Court for the Trial of Impeachments, of advising and consenting relative to Presidential appointments (Cabinet, judges, etc.), and of confirming treaties.
And the states are sovereign entities in their own right, albeit with a very reduced sovereignty owing to the Constitution and “the power to tax being the power to destroy” – when Federal aid is tied to mandates and the Federal budget is such as to make state programs often heavily dependent on it, there’s more than a bit of Federal legislation in the reserved powers being carried out by subterfuge.
Just because something can be abused doesn’t mean it is preferable to ditch it altogether. The Senate was designed as such, where the House members were elected via popular vote, and Senators elected by state legislatures. This was done purposefully and for good reason, partially to make Senators able to vote their conscience without worrying about getting tossed the next election, and be influenced by special interest groups, etc.
Actually, it was actions by kingmakers in smoke-filled rooms who created a veil of special interests to surround senators (who could not vote their conscience for fear of being removed by party bosses at the next election) that created the movement to change their selection to that by popular vote.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
As I’ve said before, I would rather put a large pack of baboons in charge of the country than make the House our sole legislative body. I think the results would be more sane if we went with the baboons.
That was the reasoning for amending the constitution in 1913, sure. Direct election hasn’t necessarily been any kind of improvement, though they did dispense with the smoke-filled rooms, presumably.
Wait, are you saying that if senators were appointed by legislatures, they’d be MORE able to vote their conscience and LESS likely to be influenced by special interests?
I suggest you read Profiles in Courage by John Kennedy. The Senators chosen by state legislatures – even the greats – were far, far more corrupt than those today, and far more beholden to special interests than we could imagine today.
I’m saying that direct election of Senators weakened the Senate as an institution, weakened the constitution, though this subject is probably outside the purview of this post, but tangentially related insofar people can seriously entertain the notion that the Senate is somehow obsolete and should be dispensed with altogether. Further, if the “smoke-filled room and party bosses” could be dispensed with, I can assume that having state legislatures vote for the Senators is acceptable otherwise?
How about some cites to back up this argument?
Sure, right at the top of the page - he is suggesting that we go to a unicameral legislature.
Bullshit-I am asking you to back up your assertion that:
Examples of this happening?
No. The system we have now is better, because there’s a wealth of historical evidence that state legislatures were less tolerant of senators exercising independence than the general voting public is.
As a comparison, I see little difference between a proposal to return to state appointments of senators and a proposal to return greater power to party establishments in order to choose presidential nominees.
And I, too, am very curious how the Senate and the Constitution have been weakened by elections. What specific recent actions taken by the Senate can you point to to demonstrate that odd assertion?
I suppose it’s “better” if you want a more democratic, i.e. answerable to the public, yes. Except, that’s the function of the House, not the Senate.
:dubious: The House is not any less a “deliberative” body, just because it represents equal-population districts, has fewer members than the Senate, and serves for two-year instead of six-year terms.
:smack: . . . has more members than the Senate . . .
But you knew that.
A pure, unfiltered democracy would be a nightmare. The people are morons. They need to be buffered.