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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
All states were rural in 1787. It was necessary, granted. So is an appendectomy. Doesn’t make it special.
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?
No and no. But I would argue that “Is” is not the same as “Ought to be”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
:rolleyes: sigh Sometimes I think we shoulda gone with Hamilton’s 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.
