I’m not sure what you mean by “empower the undemocratic Senate.”
And no, I don’t have the idea that democracy was popular amongst the Framers, but that’s kind of my point. Democracy is pretty popular now. That’s why, if we agree that democracy is a good thing (maybe we can’t agree on that), the proposition is to modify or eliminate the Senate.
Yeah, I agree. Especially, what was his name - the Trafficante guy with the wig that practically gave its own interviews?
But why not two equally sized branches - more democratic that way.
No, this is not primarily what they had in mind. What they had in mind was that senators would represent elected state governments, and thereby prevent the federal government from becoming to powerful and doing things like, oh, issuing unfunded mandates to the states.
I’m with JohnBckWLD; the 17th amendment was a terrible, horrible idea.
I am in favor of doubling the size of the house, though.
Good point.
(Of course, there is a crazy idea I have of getting rid of the states, but let’s leave that for another thread.)
How about at-large Senators in my new proposed 435-member Senate? Sort of a parliamentary idea, where each party gets a number of Senators proportionate to the number of votes in the state.
So, to be perfectly clear, for example, New York has 29 Reps, elected every two years, and 29 Senators, elected every 6. The Reps represent the local districts as they do now; the Senators represent the entire state at-large. The Dems get 55% of the vote; they get 16 Senators; the Repubs get 40% of the vote; they get 12; and the Communists (c’mon, let’s have a little fun here!) get 5% of the vote and 1 Senator. An added bonus (!) would be that more third-parties would have a shot at having a voice in the Senate.
Of course, this presupposes that all the Senators would stand for election at the same time. I think the current staggered system of 1/3 every 2 years should stay in place, so NY would be electing 10, 10, and 9 every two years, but I think you get the idea.
OK, so what’s all this about eliminating the direct election of senators? Why is that a bad idea? (Or are you guys just pulling my leg?)
Wow, I just did a google search. There’s a whole movement out there that wants to repeal the 17th Amendment. It’s very anti-democratic! What gives? furt, JohnBckWLD, please explain!
BTW, I think if we’re gonna increase the house, we should triple it. Make it that much more costly for the lobbyists to buy all the bastards off. But that’s just me.
I think you have a somewhat simnplistic understanding of democracy. We do not have a pure democracy, and that is a very good thing.
I am sure you googling gave you all the reasons. The framer’s intent was to see government kept as close to the people as possible; they recognized that a federal government would tend to draw power to itself and away from localities. The senate was to act as a check on that, keeping power from centralizing in Washington. Their purpose was not so much to use the federal government to do things, but to prevent the federal government from doing things that could be better handled by the states.
When senators are directly elected it changes their purpose. Legislators are routinely castigated as “do-nothings” if they don’t initiate and get bills passed (cf. John Kerry in the last election). As it stands now, state governments have no voice in Washington; as a result we’ve increasingly seen federal intervention into affairs that are better handled locally.
Indeed one could almost argue that direct election of senators is paradoxically less democratic, as it increasingly moves government farther away from the local level, where lawmakers are much closer to the people.
[ul][li] Nebraska has a population of 1,720,180 and therefore is a good example for running a country of 249,879,283? [/li] Increase the number of Senators and also triple the number of Representatives. While we’re at it, let’s give them a raise.[/ul]
No, it’s not. I’d love to see the ratio set at one House member per 100,000 citizens. 500,000 at most. Not that it’ll ever happen, because enlarging the size of the house dilutes the power of individual members now in it.
And, sorry, it would just lower the price for each buy-off. That’s economics.
That reply was for Reeder. Sorry for the confusion. This thread is moving right along and I should have known there would be some intervening posts.
How about keeping the Senate, but electing its members through nationwide proportional representation? That way you’ll have a much broader range of opinions, as well as representing groups that make up a considerable proportion of the population, but are spread out too thin across the nation to win a seat in the House - liberitarians, for instance, or socialists, or misrepresented minorities.
/Samir ON
This is horrible, this idea.
/Samir OFF
How about let’s NOT get rid of the Senate, mmkay?
The Senate is the only reason my state isn’t 100 times more worse off than it already is. I’m not a fan of Byrd, but unless something drastic changes, once he kicks off WV will fall off of the map (not that anyone will care).
Change it to proportional representation (like the House), and the only states that will matter are heavily populated states. I’d just as soon the 10 or so most populated states’ representatives NOT have (practically) veto power over every decision, thanks.
And I don’t know where you’re getting this whole anti-democratic nonsense. As someone said earlier, we’re not a pure democracy. Why you seem to want mob rule is beyond me. Maybe you live in a heavily populated state and wouldn’t be affected.
As I have said before, the problem with the Senate is that it is too democratic. Senators are nothing more than super-representitives, fighting for barrels of pork. (Except in a state like Nebraska where I suppose their one and only rep outranks their two senators.)
I say go back to the old system. Senators should be elected by the state legislatures. I would add a rule that would prohibit any enumeration of which senator votes which way on which bill.
This way at least one house would not consist of money-grubbers who are always kissing up to special interests to win re-election.
The Senator should (and used to) serve as a calming influence on the popular passions of the House.
OK, no need to get snarky. Let’s keep this fun. I understand democracy; that’s why I want more! I think you meant that I didn’t understand representative democracy. That would also have been snarky, but I understand that as well.
A pure democracy (correct me if I’m wrong) would be the holding of national plebiscites on everything, including parking privileges for dogcatchers. Not a good idea. I’m not arguing for a pure democracy here (although I may very well may in another thread!).
I’m just arguing for more democracy, or at least, more representative democracy, by having the Senate be more representative.
[/QUOTE]
I am sure you googling gave you all the reasons. The framer’s intent was to see government kept as close to the people as possible; they recognized that a federal government would tend to draw power to itself and away from localities. The senate was to act as a check on that, keeping power from centralizing in Washington. Their purpose was not so much to use the federal government to do things, but to prevent the federal government from doing things that could be better handled by the states.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, sure, I get the framers’ intent. This thread is a direct questioning of that intent. Why not more democracy? If power gets centralized in Washington, so be it.
And I disagree with the last part of your statement: keeping government close to the people is not done by giving power to the states - it’s done by giving power to the people. That’s what I’m proposing.
[/QUOTE]
When senators are directly elected it changes their purpose. Legislators are routinely castigated as “do-nothings” if they don’t initiate and get bills passed (cf. John Kerry in the last election). As it stands now, state governments have no voice in Washington; as a result we’ve increasingly seen federal intervention into affairs that are better handled locally.
[/QUOTE]
Why should state governments have a voice in Washington, as opposed to the people?
[/QUOTE]
Indeed one could almost argue that direct election of senators is paradoxically less democratic, as it increasingly moves government farther away from the local level, where lawmakers are much closer to the people.
[/QUOTE]
Furt, do argue! How is state control of appointment of senators more democratic? All you’re saying (I think) is that the power structure has shifted to become more centralized in Washington. So what? If that’s what people vote for, so be it. A Senator can run on a State’s Rights platform to return power to the states. I’m sure many a southern Senator has done so. If “the people” agree with that campaign, they can vote power back to the states this way. If not, tough.
Of course, I say direct election of senators is less democratic, for the obvious reason that it takes the choice of the representative away from the people.
[QUOTE=kniz]
[ul][li] Nebraska has a population of 1,720,180 and therefore is a good example for running a country of 249,879,283? [/li][li] Increase the number of Senators and also triple the number of Representatives. While we’re at it, let’s give them a raise.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
Why not? It works! Their legislature does everything any other legislature does, no? It is the same principle. Other than size, what is the difference? I don’t hear any complaints from any Nebraskans about how terrible things are in their state.
(Nebraskan dopers, chime in!)
Oh, and BTW, I think the country has about 290 million now.
And the cost of paying for all these new bastids would be the least of it. Let’s see, we’re talking about 1300 new government employees at approximately $150,000 each = $200 million. A drop in the bucket.
Let’s call this one choice (c). I like!
But Paul, under choice (a) or ©, the Senate would still be a calming influence; they would still be there for 6 year terms. They would just be more representative. If you don’t like the “kissing up to special interests to win re-election” (and really, who does?), then why not make it 8 year terms, so that people have more time to forget what senators have done in between elections? Or a term-limited senatorship of one term, 10 years?
And a secret ballot? I can hear the conspiracy theorists now! :eek:
I agree with the OP in this regard. I don’t think the Founders had a notion that some states would eventually have huge cities which by themselves had more people than some entire states. We were then an agrarian country with a few smallish cities scattered among population consisting mostly of farmers.
I didn’t think it was the unwritten role of the Senate to prevent mob rule; I thought that job went to the courts.
Why do you keep insisting that the presence of a 2-per state Senate eliminates the people’s voice in the House? You need to demonstrate that having a balance between state issues and popular issues is a bad thing.
I don’t understand why 435 Senators is more democratic or wise than 100. Because it’s oh-so-slightly more proportional? The Senate is the way it is in order to avoid that whole tyranny of the majority thing. That’s not undemocratic, from a certain point of view it’s more democratic since it protects minority opinions. It’s smart, and I think it should be left the way it is.