Under those circumstances, even one legislative body is irrelevant. I do not see your point about one party systems and bicameral systems.
I see no reason for the rolleyes. A State breaking itself up is not only constitutional, it has happened before, and is clearly allowed under Article IV. It’s no more unrealistic than dissolving the U.S. Senate, and it has the advantage of being clearly allowed by the Constitution versus being clearly disallowed.
Additionally, if you guys who want the U.S. Senate gone so bad are so right about it being this terrible abomination, why is it that big States haven’t split themselves up? Obviously they think there is power in being a big state, they choose to continue being big states.
Not since Maine broke from Massachusetts and Vermont from NY, and that was in the 18th Century. (West Virginia is of course a special case.)
Could a large state split itself up but have the baby states work together in a regional cooperation zone? Maybe one with a quasi-legislative council, maybe not, but why not? Thus “Texas” could survive while Texans had more representation in the Senate. I know I suggested something like this before and people looked at me like I was mad.
I have actually had a soft spot in my heart for Hamilton’s plan as well. I should mention if I was a Founding Father I wouldn’t really support our specific system of government. I liked several of the ideas out there at the time, and would probably have preferred a hybrid system with a stronger legislature than we have.
My ideal system would still be a Federation, because I think local government is important and should be paramount on most concerns, simply because local leaders are more able to understand and deal with local issues. However, I think the backward nature of some of the States has held the country back before, and is obviously what lead to the civil war.
My plan would steal some of Hamilton’s plan, but not all of it. The national legislature would be bicameral, the lower house being elected the same as our House of Reps, but to 4 year terms (2 year terms was a stupid idea.) Additionally, these districts would be required to be as close to uniform in size as possible, and will be drawn without regard to State borders.
The upper house members would essentially be “ambassadors of the States” and protectors of State powers as defined in the constitution. Each State would get 5 representatives in the upper house, appointed to indefinite terms by State Governors and approved by State legislatures. They could be removed by two means, one is if their State’s governor recalls them and the recall is approved by 2/3rds of the State legislature, and secondly they could be ejected from the upper house for whatever reason the rest of the house sees fit if 2/3rds of that body so voted (ideally it’d be used mostly against the grossly incompetent/corrupt/etc.)
The upper house would have no normal legislative role, all real legislative power would be in the lower house which is representative to the people at large. The upper house’s approval would not be necessary for legislation to pass and be submitted to the President. The upper house would approve foreign treaties negotiated by the President and would be responsible approving judicial appointments.
The upper house would have a narrow set of legislative powers:
-The upper house could veto any State legislature’s law, on any grounds. But it would require a supermajority of the upper house (not as high as 2/3rds, maybe more like 5/9ths.)
-The upper house would be responsible for maintaining a uniform legal code, which would be applicable in all States. State and local governments would have the authority to draft their own ordinances but the punishment for violation of those ordinances could not be any worse than that of misdemeanors (meaning maximum of 12 months incarceration and X dollars fine, the dollar amount would have to be adjustable.) The States would still be responsible for maintaining the criminal courts, the police systems, and things of that nature relating to criminal justice.
-The upper house, while normally powerless to stop legislation designed by the lower house, would have the authority to block three types of legislation: laws deemed to interfere with the specific enumerated powers of the states, laws which directly disburse any monies from the Federal government to the State government or that seek to regulate the ability of a State to receive said monies from the Federal government, any laws passed to regulate commerce between the states. There would be a check on this power, however. A council made up 1/2 by members of the upper house and 1/2 by Federal judges selected for this role by the President would be responsible for adjudicating the use of this power any time the upper house sought to use this power and the lower house argued that the legislation was not one of the three special types subject to the upper house review, the President would have tie-breaking authority in this council if such a tie were to happen.
The above set of stipulations would make it very difficult to erode State powers and thus might give the States too much power, but to balance that I would have given far more enumerated powers to the national legislature to begin with (for example the ability to levy direct taxes.)
I would also have made a more comprehensive list of rights than our constitution was shipped with. Additionally, since we’d have a uniform criminal code I’d mandate only a small set of specific types of crimes could be tried in Federal courts. However one specific role of Federal law enforcement would be protecting those specifically enumerated rights, violations designed to prevent one citizen’s free exercise of certain enumerated rights, would be tried by the Federal courts by default.
The Presidency would be a bit different. I would dispense with the concept of the unitary executive for one. By creating the potential for executive powers independent of the Presidency. The lower House would have the option of creating agencies that were headed by Presidential appointees, but they would also have the option of creating agencies in which the head of the agency was appointed by the legislature. I would also allow for members of the legislature to be those agency heads, allowing them to concurrently serve in the House and as head of a Federal agency. Certain Presidential powers would of course be inviolate, such as power over the military, negotiation rights with foreign powers and etc.
I’d also have the President be elected by a modified electoral college (sorry, no popular vote.) Each House district would vote via preferential voting for their top two choices to go to the electoral college (assume they would probably end up being proxies for national candidates just like electors are now.) In each district, the top two selections would go to the electoral college, in addition each House member would also go. So essentially every House district would have 3 votes in the EC, two selected by the voters and the member of congress from that district.
Constitutionally I think so, eh? Through interstate compacts? The only kicker is interstate compacts cannot be entered into without approval from Congress; so politically it might not be so easily done.
From BG’s wiki link, I find Charles Pinckney’s plan…interesting. He apparently proposed 1 House Representative per 1,000 persons.
Would definitely make for an impressive legislative chamber, since that would put the House at around 300,000 members at present we’d need to have the largest indoor stadium in the United States (maybe the world?) to house the legislature.
That was my point.
But once you consider individuals this is no longer true.
It doesn’t seem ridiculous to me. The reason for the compromise was that there would be no Union without it. That reason is gone. We have become a single nation. What then is the virtue of this relic of our past? It privileges some over there fellow Americans so it would be difficult to be rid of but if it could be done then it should be done. And even if it can’t it remains the right thing to do.
I would agree if the parties to the compromise agree that we are now one union, and the Senate serves no purpose, it should be abolished. Those parties still exist, the compromise is still legally binding, and until those parties agree, I see no validity in breaking up the Senate.
To me, the question as to whether the Senate should be broken up is the same as the question “do the parties involved want the Senate broken up?”
Of secondary importance to me is whether the people want the Senate broken up, and aside from internet message boards I’ve never seen any meaningful support for abolition of the Senate.
OK, but you’re only talking about 13 or perhaps 15 of the states here. All the others are not party to any compromise, they are creatures of Congress. They started as U.S. territories and has the choice to remain so or become states – independence was never an option.
Those people are dead. They don’t get a vote. The American Senate serves Americans. If Americans want to abolish it then we can. “Some of us don’t want to,” doesn’t seem like much of an argument against doing so to me. Arguing the importance of states would be more effective, IMO, if residents of states were a separate people. But they ain’t. We are all the American people.
Like I said, even ignoring the States (which I wouldn’t do, but I can stipulate for discussion purposes) outside of random message board musings I’ve never heard mainstream support, even in big states like California, for abolition of the Senate. Abolition of the Electoral College? Sure, but not the Senate.
I’d like to see certain areas of the U.S. grouped together into larger Senatorial districts. Say, “New England,” and “The West” (i.e., a big band of small-population states such as Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, etc.)
But…this is random message board musing! It couldn’t possibly happen, even if it would reduce the gross disparity in representation.
Calling it “random message board musings” is obviously a degree of cop out, but when we’ve basically rolled the argument around as much as it necessary to fully explore it and people are just saying the same things it is probably prudent to out what is what.
The people who think the Senate is a gross violation of democratic principles will want it abolished. I think those democratic principles simply do not apply to the Senate, it was never intended to be a straight democratic body, nor do I think that is desirable. We aren’t alone in the nations of the world in having pseudo-democratic legislative houses. Some have upper houses which are not directly elected at all.
The way I see it is, one of the freest societies of its age created the Senate to bind together a collection of loosely affiliated states in a national union. It was needed as a compromise measure. The nation that was born has evolved since that time and so have its people and its culture and its beliefs and its ideas on government. We have universal adult suffrage, for one. We have abolished slavery and various other major societal changes.
I’m not saying that “just because” that’s how it was decided on 220+ years ago that is how it needs to stay. I’m saying that the free society that exists now is the proper judge of whether the Senate serves its interests. When a free society, for its own reasons, persists in having a body like the Senate without any outrage my assumption is the majority of them are okay with it. Lots of extremely free societies choose certain less-than-democratic mechanisms for their government.
Of course, the vast difficulty of the amendment process, dominated by those very same small states, makes the injustice (to whatever degree it exists) very strongly self-perpetuating.
True. There’s nothing wrong with a certain degree of “supermajority” protection against the tyranny of the (simple) majority. And, to be sure, the system “ain’t broke,” at least not to the degree that it absolutely requires fixing. It irks me that a bloke in Wyoming has thirty-odd times the representation I do, but, as Wyoming isn’t receiving thirty-odd times as much Federal money as my state is, only being irked is something I can live with.
The courts are also “undemocratic,” and the constitution certainly is also. The idea of a pure Athenian-style Democracy in the U.S. scares the starch out of my skivvies!
What, haven’t you ever read Edmund Burke?! 
No, you pretty much said upthread we were stuck with the 220±year-old decision, because teh Constitution! Yeah, just like 3/5 of a man!
As for the rest, don’t tell us we can’t want change because we don’t want change, that’s circular. Those of us who want the Senate gone are trying to convince others, and that’s what we’ll do if such twaddle is the best you can offer.
Well jeez you didn’t have to get all practical. Buzzkill!
From the present I can certainly sympathise with what you say, but it’s possible at some point in the future Wyoming’s clear advantage will be watered down, say, if there’s a sudden population influx there (unlikely perhaps!)
Pure speculation I know 