In its current form, that is. As long as we’re getting rid of the electoral college (OK, a pipe dream, I know), why don’t we get rid of the Senate, too?
Proposition: the Senate as it is currently constituted is anti-democratic and should therefore be replaced.
Proposition: Replace the Senate with:
(a) 435 Senators, the same number as Representatives, and allocated the same way, except their term is still 6 years. (This is sort of a nod to the Founders, who (I believe) thought that the Senate would be more insulated from popular passions if they were elected only every six years, and consist of “wise old men.”)
(b) nothing, a la Nebraska, which has a unicameral Legislature.
Out of the House, Senate and Executive branch, the Senate I think has generally been the most moderate and sane of the three for a while now. I think that’s a good thing.
I think that the Senate is often a sanity check on populist legislation. Eliminating them would be one step closer to the “Tyranny of the Masses,” IMHO.
OK, that tells me you don’t like choice (b), the Nebraska model. But it seems to work fine for Nebraska. I mean, I don’t hear stories coming out of Nebraska about runaway legislators, or some such.
Your Plan B idea would not be a good thing in my opinion. The nice thing about a bicameral legislature is its conservative nature. Reduce it to one house and laws become way to easy to pass. Congress has a lot of power in the US (way more than any state) and reducing its internal checks could be as dangerous as removing its external checks.
Also, there are Consitutional issues here that must be dealt with and cannot be ignored. Forgetting about amendmenting the Constitution. The Senate was designed to be different from the House and it still is even after the 17th amendement. Change the nature of the Senate and you risk all kinds of unforeseen consequences. I think you should have a very good reason to change the very nature of the federal government. Your reason for getting rid of the Senate is one the very reasons we have the Senate. It might not be perfect but your solution could be even worse.
Although we have or had a few posters with that stance, I’m pretty sure you won’t find it to be a general opinion of the U.S. Senate.
Now, the Canadian Senate, that’s something to be radically altered. In both nations, though, the Senate’s main funtion is that of ‘sober second thought’, which is increasingly desirable in this 24-hour news-cycle age.
Again, Kel, if I may be so bold, I refer you to Nebraska. Things seem to work out pretty well there without a senate. While I agree eliminating the Senate would remove a check, and I also agree that such a check is what the Founders intended, who says the Founders were right? Again, this is anti-democratic, especially with the Senate’s 60-vote cloture rule. I am playing devil’s advocate here a little bit, but having the Senate with cloture means that a minority of 41 can block legislation. This too is anti-democratic.
As for the second part of your post, I agree to an extent. But again, it’s an anti-democratic position to allow the Senate to continue as is. At least with my 435-member Senate option, the Senate becomes just as democratic as the House.
As much as I hate grossly disproportionate representation, have you seen the mutants they elect to the house? I wouldn’t trust those guys with a bake sale let alone a whole branch of the govenment.
Does the Senate in Nebraska have the power of the Commerce Clause? The ability to block treaties? The ability to lay and collect taxes? To borrow money on the credit on the US? Impeach members of the other branches? Etc.
The Nebraska House does not have the power of the US Senate.
Sure they did. The point of an upper chamber was pretty much what ExTank said. It was supposed to protect the property of the wealthy from populist legislation arising in the lower, more popular, chamber. The indirect election ( before the 17th Amendment ), longer terms, and per capita voting were attempts to keep Senators independent.
Put me down for (b) since we are ignoring the ironclad constitutional guarantees.
OK, I hear ya. You’re arguing that what the Senate does is more important for the entire country than what Nebraska’s unicameral Legislature does for Nebraska.
But the Nebraska Legislature can lay and collect taxes. For Nebraska. And I’d bet that they can impeach members of the other branches. Of Nebraska.
And the Nebraska Legislature does all the other things that Legislatures do (schools, healthcare, gun control, issue bonds). Without trouble. In Nebraska. So if it’s good enough for Nebraska, why isn’t it good enough for you?
I vote for keeping the Senate the way it is. House districts are just too small and homogeneous. A Representative only has to worry about his own district, which usually has really specific concerns, and a specific political biases. A Senator, especially in one of the larger states, can’t do that. He or she has to be concerned with the welfare of the entire state, city as well as country, liberal as well as conservative. This is a moderating influence, and forces the senator to take a wider view.
