I think the Founding Fathers were about the wisest and most forward looking bunch ever gathered on the planet. I believe they came up with a wonderful system and wouldn’t change a thing. The problems we have are with the individuals who occupy the seats, not how the seats were determined.
I don’t like the proportional representation proposal and IMHO the House size should increase dramatically…
Here’s the democracy you so crave: Eliminate the 435 Member Cap for US Representitives that was instituted in 1911.
When that member limit was instituted, each congressman represented 211,000 constituents. Today, each house member represents 668,000 constituents. More than 3x the number of citizens being represented by a static number of representitives.
Using a 210,000:1 ratio, there should be over 1,415 congesspersons serving in the US House of Representitives today.
I didn’t think this was too hard a concept, but I’ll try it again:
100 senators is less democartic because they represent states, 2 per state, and not people. 435 is not “oh-so-slightly more proportional,” it’s WAAAAAY more proportional. Every 600,000 (approximately) people get a senator, just like they get a representative, as opposed to the current system, where states like Delaware and Wyoming get 2 senators, and states like California and Texas also get 2. That’s more democratic.
Under the new “regime,” NY has 29 Reps and 29 Sens. Delaware, instead of having 2 senators, gets just 1, so that the number of reps and sens are equal. Same with Wyoming, etc., so that the total is 435. Get it?
Whether doing this is wise or not, that’s the point of this thread. I hold that it would be more democratic to have senators in numbers proportionate to the number of people they represent, not in proportion to the state they represent.
Someone has already pointed out that the courts act as a check on mob rule; why do we need a double check in the form of the senate? Also, there is nothing preventing the new senate from enacting the same cloture rule that they have now (60% of 435 = 261 votes needed to close off debate), so that it would be just as “anti-democratic” as it is now and protect those minority voices.
I guess this begs the question - why is the tyranny of the majority a bad thing?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but in the UK, for example, or any parliamentary democracy, isn’t this just the way it goes? The majority party does what it wants, what it feels it can get away with, what it feels won’t go too far, or else if the people don’t like it, they will vote the bums out! That system works.
They’re completely different kinds of checks. You might’ve noticed that Senators have terms and judges are appointed for life. Senators don’t interpret the Constitution or the law, judges do. And judges don’t create legislation (which the Senate does, just at a slower rate than the House).
That’s not what begging the question means, and I already answered it: there are checks on the majority because minorities have rights as well.
Sure, we’d have to build a whole new monstrous Capitol building, 
but it’d be worth it. This would get me my desired tripling of the House, though.
I like the idea more as an anti-lobbyist type thing (although someone has already pointed out that they think this would backfire), and also to get more third-parties involved in the whole deal by making the barriers to getting elected smaller.
My take is that the majority may not care about maintaining the rights of the minority. One could conceive of a Christian majority outlawing non-Christian faiths. Or making baptism mandatory. Or conservatives of all types banning all adult magazines. The more hoops that need be jumped in order to take away civil liberties, the better.
To expand on that - or expound, whichever - the will of the majority can change very fast, and if the laws of this country can be changed that quickly, it can be a problem. Government needs to have a certain amount of continuity. That’s why we have the Courts, and that’s why we have a Senate that’s supposed to be a little bit less beholden to the whims of the moment. House members need to campaign for their entire terms; Senators know they’re in it for the long haul. A Senate of 435 would probably clog the process too much.
Oh, don’t they? See my other thread in great debates on judicial activism. 
Yes, but as we’ve already discussed, the Courts are already empowered to protect the rights of the minority - if they feel they are being trampled upon, they can sue. Do you have some examples of rights of the minorities that the Senate currently protects? (I’m not being snarky here.)
Also, please address my parliamentarian example, where the minorities’ rights are preserved, such as they are, by their power to vote.
OK, here’s my plan. Leave the Senate the way it is.
Change the house. Do away with election of representatives. Every prospective representative must gather endorsements, each voter can endorse one and only one representative, but can endorse any representative and can change their endorsement at any time, subject to some reasonable regulation. Any representative that can gather X endorsements (say about 500,000) will be seated in the house. Representatives that have nX endorsements will be entitled to n votes in the house. Representatives that fall under X endorsements will be expelled from the house imediately, although they can still observe from the balcony.
Representatives will no longer represent legislative districts or states or parties, but rather national voting blocs. Of course political groups will attempt mass endorsement of their slate of candidates, so something like political parties will re-emerge, but we will probably have many more single-issue representatives. Any important issue that can attract N single-issue voters will be represented. This puts all vote-buying and campaigning right in the open. Politicians sponsored by corporations will be obvious, politicians won’t be beholden to special interests, they will BE special interests. Bring the infighting out of the back alleys and smoke filled rooms and put it right there on the house floor.
If only I had waited. These are all great examples, but the Courts could step in to render them (most of them, anyway), unconstitutional.
That can take years, and the Supreme Court can only hear so many cases. The Court is a last-ditch measure, and it’s a good thing if we don’t have it overturning laws left and right. I think that kind of turmoil is bad for the law in general; it becomes hard to enforce anything. And the Constitution can be changed, so the more difficult it is for a majority to amend the Constitution, the better. I’d say that’s a very big potential problem. If the Constitution is being changed frequently, it becomes meaningless.
Yeh, OK, but my proposal for the 435-person Senate keeps a 6-year Senate term, so that they’re just as beholden (or not) in the new Senate as they are now. They would turn over just as much or as little as they do now, with staggered elections.
If you’re saying that 435 people would slow things down, then that refutes your own argument. The Senate would move slower, and be more deliberative, and according to you, that would be a good thing. They would be able to get just as much work done as the 435-person House.
But it always takes years to have Courts reach issues. This wouldn’t be any different in the new system. Congress currently passes anti-constitutional measures that are in effect for a number of years before they’re overturned. And if Congress gets in the habit of passing anti-constitutional measures, and getting slapped down for it, then the people are (hopefully) going to wake up and vote them out for doing so.
As for amending the constitution, I don’t see how changing the Senate would make it significantly easier to do so. You’ve still go the state ratifying process as as a check on this.
I didn’t say “the slower, the better.” The Senate moving slower than the House is a good thing. Clogging it with 335 new members, working on a smaller scale (representing districts instead of their states) would slow things down too much.
I was thinking it would be possible for more anti-constitutional measures to be passed, thus creating more work for the Courts. Although perhaps that’s not the case if the Senate is moving more slowly.
Sorry, I just don’t buy it. 435 members in the Senate would work just as slowly or quickly as the House.
Right!
I’m suggesting that that’s the problem.
Then help me out, here, because I’m not getting it.
The 435-House moves quickly when it needs to (the Patriot Act, for good or ill, leaps to mind), and so can the 435-Senate.
I thought you were saying that since the 435-Senate moves so slowly, then we really won’t run into problems with them responding to the will of the majority, passing new anti-constitutional legislation or amendments too quickly, etc. These are all good things, no?
Also, I thought you were saying that the Senate needs to be a deliberative body and take it’s time, both admirable goals that the 435-Senate would encourage. So what’s the problem? Am I missing something?
Agreed. On the other side of the coin, one could conceive of a secular majority outlawing religion in public, exterminating minorities in concentration camps, forcing abortions on pregnant women in the name of population control., re-education camps fot those who don’t toe the party line…all of which, I might add, really happened.
Where did this happen? Nazi Germany? (Again, not trying to be snarky.)
But why does getting rid of the Senate, or increasing it’s membership, as I’ve described, all of a sudden make this possible? As I responded to BobLibDem, the SCOTUS exists to protect against such abuses, as does a voting populace.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but they can do this sort of thing in the UK. For example, while I was there in 1994, I recall that they pretty much well eliminated the freedom to assembly (too much of a nuisance) and the right against self-incrimination. IIRC, it went like this - the prosecutor would call the defendant to the stand, and ask questions. The defendant would refuse to respond. The Judge would at this point turn to the jury and say something like, “I direct you that you may draw any inference you like from the defendant’s refusal to testify.”
Don’t get me wrong, this is all bad stuff.
But stuff like this doesn’t last, because the bastids get voted out. It amazed me that mere political power (not constitutional safeguards) kept things pretty well in check.
And I have no clue how judicial review works in the UK, but here I can rest assured that the SCOTUS wouldn’t put up with such nonsense.
SCOTUS is a paper Tiger; they have no means of actually enforcing any ruling other than the other two branche’s respect for the rule of law, and quite possibly the states.