# Is It Time For the Senate to Go? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 4, 2012, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-senate-to-go/608354 "2012-01-04T06:49:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-senate-to-go/608354/121 "2012-01-08T18:49:13Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Note Athens…they tried it, most governments that do try simplistic pure democracy fail fairly quickly. > > The reason I mentioned Mic checks is that it is a current example, the occupy movement had little or no chance of long term survival because of their insistence on ruling by consensus. No one in this thread has promoted pure democracy or ruling by consensus. > [@](#): > > The system we have where out upper house is allocated via states may be less than ideal but this thread was not about replacing it with another form of upper house, it was suggested that it should be reduced to a popular based vote, and that is untenable. I’m trying to get at why you think eliminating it is untenable. Your position seems to be that we need it because it enhances certain minority interests. My point is that there are other minority interests that it doesn’t enhance, interests that arguably are far more relevant than the rural/urban distinction, that are underrepresented by the Senate. What is the sense if it only privileges some interests at the expense of others? > [@](#): > > The Scandinavian countries are anomalies mostly due to them having homogenized societies IMHO. Scandinavian countries have diverse economies and rural and urban areas. They are only homogenized culturally. That is, the opposite of the way that our Senate “balances” things. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-senate-to-go/608354/122 "2012-01-08T19:14:46Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > No one in this thread has promoted pure democracy or ruling by consensus. > > I’m trying to get at why you think eliminating it is untenable. Your position seems to be that we need it because it enhances certain minority interests. My point is that there are other minority interests that it doesn’t enhance, interests that arguably are far more relevant than the rural/urban distinction, that are underrepresented by the Senate. What is the sense if it only privileges some interests at the expense of others? > > Scandinavian countries have diverse economies and rural and urban areas. They are only homogenized culturally. That is, the opposite of the way that our Senate “balances” things. You are offering a false dichotomy, just because it does not solve all problems does not mean it has no value. The reasons the houses have different memberships is of less interest than the fact that they are chosen differently. It is that which in theory should help prevent the majorities interests too far above the dissenting individual’s interests. The silencing of descent due to mob rule is an issue with pure democracies, Sweden has only been unicameral for 40 years, they have not had a single party with a majority control for that time period, we will have to wait and see if they have issue if one develops. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-senate-to-go/608354/123 "2012-01-08T22:07:09Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > I chose terms poorly, I was not speaking of the system of “checks and balances”, I was speaking of how when a one party system has absolute control of both appointments and has a government which will rubber stamp any legislation that it hands out, and has the ability to overrule those bodies if they did choose to over rule any such legislation having two bodies is absolutely irrelevant. There was still internal politics in the one-party state. Or do you think that all partisans think with one group mind? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-senate-to-go/608354/124 "2012-01-08T22:09:08Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > The reason I mentioned Mic checks is that it is a current example, the occupy movement had little or no chance of long term survival because of their insistence on ruling by consensus. I agree. You know who doesn’t rule by consensus? The House of Representatives. You know who talks about consensus all the time? Senate majority leader Harry Reid. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-senate-to-go/608354/125 "2012-01-08T22:12:29Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > There was still internal politics in the one-party state. Or do you think that all partisans think with one group mind? You may want to google Politburo ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-senate-to-go/608354/126 "2012-01-08T23:32:22Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > You may want to google Politburo Eh? The Politburo that agreed that Beria needed to be shot? You may need to Google Trotsky. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-senate-to-go/608354/127 "2012-01-08T23:38:30Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > Eh? The Politburo that agreed that Beria needed to be shot? > > You may need to Google Trotsky. 😕 And what does Trotsky have to do with the subject of the USSR’s legislative branch operating as a bicameral system? ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-senate-to-go/608354/128 "2012-01-08T23:47:37Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > You are offering a false dichotomy, just because it does not solve all problems does not mean it has no value. Strawman. It’s not just that rural interests are privileged and others are not. Rural interests are privileged at the expense of other interests. And lets not lose sight of the Scandinavian example. They get no credit for the lack of problems from the rural/urban difference because more important cultural factors such as racial differences don’t exist. How does it make sense for a more important minority, blacks, to get less representation in the Senate because rural interests need to be overrepresented? > [@](#): > > The reasons the houses have different memberships is of less interest than the fact that they are chosen differently. It is that which in theory should help prevent the majorities interests too far above the dissenting individual’s interests. How so? Again we are not dealing with hypothetical small factions but with the reality of mass political parties. Parties have to maintain something of a steady ideology. So they can’t pick up ultraliberals in one state and ultraconservatives in another. Latinos in one state and Build That Fence types in another. There are exceptions, of course, but in general parties have to build consistent platform in order to compete on a nationwide basis. So parties can safely ignore groups. Again going with blacks, the Republicans don’t need them to win. So they are free to ignore black interests. > [@](#): > > The silencing of descent due to mob rule is an issue with pure democracies… Again, no one here is promoting pure democracies. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-senate-to-go/608354/129 "2012-01-09T19:05:30Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > Strawman. It’s not just that rural interests are privileged and others are not. Rural interests are privileged at the expense of other interests. And lets not lose sight of the Scandinavian example. They get no credit for the lack of problems from the rural/urban difference because more important cultural factors such as racial differences don’t exist. How does it make sense for a more important minority, blacks, to get less representation in the Senate because rural interests need to be overrepresented? Rural states would not have signed on in 1787 if they weren’t given equal representation in the Senate. That was part of the agreement that still goes on to this day. The large states would have had to put up with “flyover country” as a separate country, or conquered it militarily without this agreement. That’s what makes it special. > [@](#): > > … Latinos in one state and Build That Fence types in another. There are exceptions, of course, but in general parties have to build consistent platform in order to compete on a nationwide basis. So parties can safely ignore groups. Again going with blacks, the Republicans don’t need them to win. So they are free to ignore black interests. I’m curious. What are “black interests”? Do black people and Latinos not want decent jobs, good schools, and safe environments for their families and children the same as white people? ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-senate-to-go/608354/130 "2012-01-09T19:28:18Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Rural states would not have signed on in 1787 if they weren’t given equal representation in the Senate. That was part of the agreement that still goes on to this day. The large states would have had to put up with “flyover country” as a separate country, or conquered it militarily without this agreement. That’s what makes it special. All states were rural in 1787. It was necessary, granted. So is an appendectomy. Doesn’t make it special. > [@](#): > > I’m curious. What are “black interests”? Do black people and Latinos not want decent jobs, good schools, and safe environments for their families and children the same as white people? Ah I get it, you are pointing out that blacks and whites have the same essential interests? So blacks wouldn’t need any extra advantage. Great point! So what are the essential differences between rural and nonrural folks? ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-senate-to-go/608354/131 "2012-01-11T20:28:14Z")
(Reposted from the other bicameral thread.) > [@A one-house legislature is better than a two-house legislature](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/78): > > As a citizen of a state in the United States you are entitled to representation in Congress. Your congressman in the House and your two State senators. The citizens of California receive the representation they are entitled to just as the citizens of Wyoming do. Are you arguing an individual citizen in California _doesn’t_ have three congressional representatives? And that a citizen of Wyoming has more than three? No and no. But I would argue that “Is” is not the same as “Ought to be”. > [@](#): > > What you seem hung up on is the citizen of California’s congressman represents roughly 700,000 people, and his two Senators represent 37 million, whereas the two Senators from Wyoming represent 600,000 and the lone congressman from Wyoming represents 600,000. > > But that doesn’t mean any individual Californian has _less_ representation than any individual from Wyoming (what is Wyoming’s demonym?) That’s exactly what it means. If 200,000 Wyomingites care passionately about an issue their Senators need to take that very seriously. That’s a third of their constituency. A Californian Senator? Not so much. The opinions of individual Californians count for less in the Senate than those of Wyomingites. Far less. > [@](#): > > One man one vote has _never_ been a principle for anything other than the ballot box to directly elect the representatives themselves. Well maybe. And maybe the (para)phrase in Gray v Sanders refers to full political equality. It seems to but perhaps not. In any case, political equality is something Americans have striven for throughout the existence of this nation. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-senate-to-go/608354/132 "2012-01-11T21:29:17Z")
> [@A one-house legislature is better than a two-house legislature](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/78): > > One man one vote has _never_ been a principle for anything other than the ballot box to directly elect the representatives themselves. In a Senate election or a House election, it is one man, one vote. Each individual gets to cast one vote in each race in their district, no one gets more than one vote. What happens at the Federal level in terms of the portion of political power a region’s representatives receive relative to the population of that region is not at all related to the concept of “one man, one vote.” Case law says you are wrong. _Reynolds v. Sims_ mandated redrawing legislative districts after every census to ensure, “equality under the law.” That’s the phrase to remember. They didn’t change the Federal Senate because it was grandfathered in by the Constitution, but they didn’t decide by analogy that unequal districts must be OK otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-senate-to-go/608354/133 "2012-01-11T21:33:18Z")
The US Senate has less turnover that the UK House of Lords. Its membership is old, with many corrupt and senile members. No senator should serve more than 12 years (2 terms), and attendence should be mandatory. Plus, long-serving senators (like Kennedy, Reid, Gore,Byrd) develop trememdous power (control of key comittees)-this should not be allowed (committe chairs should rotate). Its an institution that badly needs reform…but don’t count on it. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-senate-to-go/608354/134 "2012-01-11T23:02:57Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Case law says you are wrong. > > _Reynolds v. Sims_ mandated redrawing legislative districts after every census to ensure, “equality under the law.” That’s the phrase to remember. They didn’t change the Federal Senate because it was grandfathered in by the Constitution, but they didn’t decide by analogy that unequal districts must be OK otherwise. We’re talking about the United States Senate, Federal law not State law. _Reynolds v. Sims_ is irrelevant in such a discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-senate-to-go/608354/135 "2012-01-11T23:10:23Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > That’s exactly what it means. If 200,000 Wyomingites care passionately about an issue their Senators need to take that very seriously. That’s a third of their constituency. A Californian Senator? Not so much. The opinions of individual Californians count for less in the Senate than those of Wyomingites. Far less. They do not count less than Wyomingites. The 600,000 in Wyoming _do not have more power_ in the Senate than the 37,000,000 Californians. 300,000 voters in Wyoming have more power than a group of 300,000 Californians, but I actually don’t see the problem inherent in that. Is it unfair? It depends on what criteria you use. I use the criteria we used when we all (I was there) ratified the Constitution. Just because obviously everyone back then is now dead doesn’t undermine the validity of the original agreement. > [@](#): > > Well maybe. And maybe the (para)phrase in Gray v Sanders refers to full political equality. It seems to but perhaps not. In any case, political equality is something Americans have striven for throughout the existence of this nation. The whole point of the concept of “compromise” is you give up something you want for something else you want more. In this case the large States have given up having the same constituent : representative ratio as some smaller state in exchange for having a country of 50 states instead of many different independent countries. It seems ridiculous to me that a structure which is the _only_ reason the United States is one country right now should be thrown away just because in the last century the country has evolved in such a way that no States would ever realistically leave. But if there was no U.S. Senate I can assure you new territories probably would not have willingly joined the United States when settled, nor would all of the constituent members have stayed. In fact New England probably never would have joined in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-senate-to-go/608354/136 "2012-01-11T23:31:09Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > No senator should serve more than 12 years (2 terms), and attendence should be mandatory. If everyone agreed with you, they wouldn’t and they would. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2012, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-senate-to-go/608354/137 "2012-01-12T00:11:58Z")
Another thing, I don’t see why Wyoming should have to give up the rules it and every other State willingly entered into. If California’s people have such a problem with only having 2 Senators between the 37 million of them there is a totally constitutional way they can get more Senators without denying Wyoming its two senators. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2012, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-senate-to-go/608354/138 "2012-01-12T00:16:56Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Another thing, I don’t see why Wyoming should have to give up the rules it and every other State willingly entered into. If California’s people have such a problem with only having 2 Senators between the 37 million of them there is a totally constitutional way they can get more Senators without denying Wyoming its two senators. What way is that, other than giving the exact same number to Wyoming? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2012, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-senate-to-go/608354/139 "2012-01-12T00:32:25Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What way is that, other than giving the exact same number to Wyoming? Breaking itself up. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2012, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-senate-to-go/608354/140 "2012-01-12T00:37:09Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Breaking itself up. :rolleyes: _sigh_ Sometimes I think we shoulda gone with [Hamilton’s plan.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)#Hamilton.27s_Plan) It’s practically a monarchy, but at least there’s no bullshit about state sovereignty, and **Congress** could redraw state lines whenever they are judged to have grown outmoded as political-administrative units. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-senate-to-go/608354.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-senate-to-go/608354.md?page=8)