I think this criticism is very fair in our current climate. My understanding is that was always by design, as the smaller body is usually more nimble and quicker to act. House deliberations are lengthy, Senate debates quick (relatively). So in a vacuum it makes sense to assign more power to the quicker acting body.
And for a long time it sort of worked, in an elitist way. The Senate, less beholden to petty local politics and serving longer terms in office, functioned as the more bipartisan, collegial half of the legislature with more inter-party friendships and the like. Senators from opposing parties generally had more in common with each other than they did with a House member from their own. Arguably in a very relative sense it still is like that relative to the House. Just barely.
But modern fast media with all its associated re-working of social relationships and hyper-partisanship has increasingly dismantled the Senate as a common social class to the point where they are no longer a brake on extreme partisanship. So at this point having the power tilted towards the Senate does create a problematic imbalance. Hard to see how to fight that now though . The U.S. government largely is what it is at this point.
Yeah, people will always have complaints, and there will always be a significant number of people who think they can think of a better direction. Between the right complaining about taxes, and the left complaining about discrimination, it’s a narrow few that think things are going swimmingly and couldn’t be improved.
That’s a different question as to whether we are on track for widespread violence that many would call a civil war, even if academics snicker at the plebeians misuse of the word.
The problem is that it doesn’t require most to cause us to descend into widespread violent conflict, it only requires a dedicated minority.
And the people who fought in those wars are almost all dead now, they don’t have much of a say.
Much would be lost, I can’t think of anything that would be gained, but when the idea isn’t to win, but to make the other side lose, that’s a feature, not a bug.
That’s not the normal explanation for the Senate. It’s usually been interpreted as the more deliberative, ponderous body, to put a check on the popular-based house. It’s now reached the point of being a major block on anything getting done, even when there is strong popular support in the House.
In selecting an appropriate visual symbol of the Senate in its founding period, one might consider an anchor, a fence, or a saucer. Writing to Thomas Jefferson, who had been out of the country during the Constitutional Convention, James Madison explained that the Constitution’s framers considered the Senate to be the great “anchor” of the government. To the framers themselves, Madison explained that the Senate would be a “necessary fence” against the “fickleness and passion” that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to “cool” House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea.
Is that information incorrect? Do the Northwest Territories have as many senators as Ontario?
Do any of the other countries mentioned during your throat trouble have nonproportional representation for the different geographic areas, regardless of population size?
I’m responding to your comment: “do as every other country does and have administrative districts, rather than entities that think that they have sovereign status.”
That’s not how every other country is organized. The four countries I’ve listed are federations, where the provinces/states/Länder are not mere administrative districts. They share sovereignty with the federal government, just like in the US, although the boundaries of that sovereignty and their power varies from federation to federation.
@Northern_Piper already mentioned it, but that’s exactly backwards, so do you think that should be reconsidered?
Pretty much all that can be done is a constitutional convention and do a complete re-write on that rag. But that’s not going to happen, so we will continue to wane until something breaks that cannot be fixed, and then we will collapse.
Yes, the traditional explanation is that the House of Representatives, elected every two years by popular vote on a local basis, will be more responsive to the popular will and more quick to respond to shifts in popular opinion, than is the case with the Senate, a third elected every two years, and now on a state-wide basis, which will not be as responsive to local issues.
Fair enough, but my point was that people compare the states to countries in the EU or NATO or the UN, where the voting power is not proportional to population, but is instead one country one vote, and use that as a justification for the one state, two votes set up of the senate.
Whether they have as strong a claim to “state’s rights” is beyond my personal knowledge.
With respect to @k9bfriender 's question about the Canadian Senate, he’s quite right that there is not equal representation, and in fact the Senate is not a very powerful house, because it’s appointed. That means political power rests in the elected House of Commons, with seats allocated (roughly) by population. However, as mentioned, that’s not the point I was making.
Well okay. How do you make the other side lose? What’s the goal?
Whatever the outcome, most wars have some rationale. Maybe the USA would dissolve into two or three countries as some say. Well, that could actually be done comparatively peaceably, like the USSR did. We don’t need a war for that.
“The right is itching for a civil war.” Again, lay it out how this war is going to take place. The rural Reds are going to form an army and attack the cities? Then what? Reeducation camps for liberals? Extermination camps for liberals? Is this a cleansing, occupation, what?
Sorry, I’ve gotten tired of these threads, Covid threads, whatever, with all of this vague doomy yadda yadda yadda handwaving. If you really believe this is going to happen, please lay out a plausible scenario.
No, I meant when red state fascists working with Donald Trump tried to violently overthrow our democracy. What makes the incident so chilling is how openly apathetic old white Americans are about the whole thing, insisting what happened didn’t happen.
I’m starting to believe that if the Oklahoma City bombing happened today 40% of Americans (and more chillingly 90% of gun owners) would believe it to be a false flag operation.
A lot of this is unfortunately fueled by the Internet and the change in news delivery and discourse. On the left as well as the right. People just listen to their chosen news source and don’t interact with people who don’t think like them.
In the old days, some loony had a hard time coming up with loony friends. Go down to the local bar, even there not everyone was going to have exactly the same ideas, even if the town was overall conservative. Now everyone just gets positive feedback on their nutjob ideas.
Well, you break stuff and kill people, and hope you break more of their stuff and kill more of their people than they break of yours. I guess the goal is that you break enough stuff and kill enough people that the other side surrenders.
Pretty much like every war.
There are those who say that such a dissolution is not possible, and I’m in the camp that says it’s pretty damn hard. But, that’s not what the far right wants anyway, they don’t want their own breakaway nation, they want this nation, under their control.
No, there will be terrorist actions, buildings blown up, malls, schools, churches and the like shot up.
You’ll need to ask them if they’ve thought that far through things. Right now they just seem to be salivating over getting a chance to break things and hurt people.
What do you think that their next step was meant to be after they took over the US Capitol?
Eh, you don’t have to post in them, if you are tired of them.
Did you not see what happened on Jan 6th? Do you not think that terrorism is plausible?
Probably. But we all know it’s not going to happen, so we’re kind of stuck with the leaky ship we have. I think the very, very, very unlikely possibility of reforming the Electoral College via Constitutional amendment is still more likely than us ever re-designing the powers of the branches of legislature.
. The U.S. government largely is what it is at this point.