And I believe JohnBckWLD is talking about China. I may be wrong.
Whoa, I gotta disagree there. SCOTUS knocks out unconstitutional laws. Like Raid (or is it Black Flag), it kills 'em dead. This would raise quite the constitutional crisis that might rip the country apart. If Congress refuses to follow a SCOTUS decision (whether it’s 100-Senate or 435-Senate) then all bets are off.
Don’t know about the UK either, but how would you feel if Ray Moore and John Ashcroft were nominated to the Supreme Court? If we depend on SCOTUS as the protector of our liberties, we could lose them with a few hare-brained appointees. I like my Senate protecting me from such nominations.
In the late 1820’s/early 1830’s the state of Georgia overturned the Cherokee constitution, and declared Cherokee laws null and void. In 1830, Congress passed a Cherokee Removal Bill, starting The Trail Of Tears.
The Cherokee nation brought suit against the state of Georgia, and in 1832, SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Cherokee’s in Worcester v. Georgia.
President Andrew ignored the court decsion.
Ahem. That would be President Andrew Jackson. And he said something to the effect of, “The court can say it; now let them enforce it.”
I agree, these guys are wack jobs. I could see how a no-senate idea could result in this. But how would 435-Senate get us there?
Or, to paraphrase, “How many divisions does SCOTUS have.” I’ll buy it; good example.
But it’s 170 years old!
Do you think they would get away with that sh*t today? The divisions today would be unrelenting attacks in the mass media, raising public concern and outcry.
Which would affect them how? A second-term President with a perceived “mandate” at the beginning of his term? Well, maybe. There’s mid-terms to consider, and rabidly partisan politics could cost the President his Congressional majority.
In any case, I think increasing the size of the Senate would dilute it’s “eclectic” nature, that allows them to insulate themselves somewhat from populist politics. I have no idea what 435 Senators might accomplish that 100 cannot.
That’s what my point is about the UK. The political process itself corrects for these kind of shenanigans.
The question is not what they would accomplish; it’s just that it would be more democratic to have 435 of them. And I don’t look for eclectisism in my legislative bodies. 
There is another thread here that asks the question about election fraud, “If it doesn’t affect the outcome of the election, does it matter?” And, OK, I haven’t read through it, but my guess is that the answer (or maybe just an answer) would be “to keep confidence in the system, otherwise people won’t vote.”
Here, my argument is similar. It makes government more democratic to have Senators representing people, rather than land (OK, OK, states), and that is a good thing. It keeps confidence in the system.
Again, the insulation from populist politics goes right back to the idea of 6-year terms, which I’ve already addressed. There is no difference in this from 100-Senate to 435-Senate
What I don’t understand is that your argument basically boils down to wanting more power for urban areas, yet you use an agarian state as your model. If you were arguing that states like the Dakotas, Wyoming, Nevada and even Mississippi, Arkansas should have a government like Nebraska, then that is a reasonable argument. It makes less sense for Ohio or Michigan. For our country which is a democratic republic it just does not make sense IMHO.
They seem very happy with their government, which includes having two senators that represent Nebraska at the federal level. I see no reason they would want to go to having three senators out of 431, instead of 2 out of 100. That is a no-brainer. 
I stand corrected. I can’t even find the site with the other figure. The correct one seems to be 294,883,083
I find it mildly amusing that you want to greatly increase the number of a group that you refer to as bastids. You are right about $200 million being a drop in the bucket. However, that is only what they are paid. It doesn’t count the cost of building new office space, paying for their staffs and all the other extras like franking rights. Also there would probably be more of a turn over and even a one term representative gets a life pension.
This whole idea has much less chance of happening than does the idea of getting rid of the Electoral College. They both have the same thing in common, though. The smaller states will never vote to give the large metropolitian areas what they would preceive as complete power. I don’t believe that your idea would be popular in upper New York or lower Illinois. Does California want to have San Francisco and Los Angeles dictate everything that happens in the state? How about Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine? They aren’t going to surrender the amount of representation they have in the Senate. It just might be a popular idea in Massachusetts. Any serious attempt to change either the EC or the Senate would suddenly make the concept of “states rights” much more popular.
My argument boils down to wanting a more democratic form of government. Others have raised points about how this wouldn’t be such a great idea, but I haven’t seen anything yet that says that fire and brimstone will fall from doing it. And you haven’t given me a reason why other urban states need a second house in their legislatures. I know you don’t have to, but I’m proposing to do away with it, or to make them representative in nature. I believe (don’t know the cite) that SCOTUS has already held that if a state has a senate, it must be representative. That’s not the point either; I’m talking about the federal senate.
I agree; no state is gonna voluntaily move from 2 sens to 1. I wasn’t totally explicit about this in my OP, but disregard all the practicalities of getting this done. It’s impossible, or at least about as possible as getting rid of the electoral college.
But that’s not relevant. Let’s discuss it anyway.
No disagreement here. Lots more dough, but really, a drop in the bucket when compared to the overall federal budget. Let’s ignore it.
Again, let’s ignore the practicalities of getting it done. It ain’t gonna happen. The question is, what would happen if it were done? Would it be better? Worse? Why?
“It wouldn’t be that bad” is quite a bit different from presenting a concrete reason we should do it.
Okay, I think I’m hanging on terminology here. I here [read] “more Democratic” and automatically think “mob rule.” 
Well, not really, but close. I went back and re-read the OP just to make sure I’m not being drawn into topic drift here.
It was never the Senate’s function to be proportionally representative and reflect majority opinion in a Democratic fashion. That’s the House’s job. If you think that the moneyed interests are already being fairly (or even unfairly!) represented in the House, and that therefore the Senate (as-is) is unecessary, you might be on to something.
But I’ll keep my rabble-rousing in check.
I too saw that thread, and passed on it. I reached the same conclusion you did without even having read the thread.
Sure, but confidence for whom?
For me, the Senate, as-is, provides confidence that the gun-control nuts won’t just gut the 2nd Amendment.
For BobLibDem, it’s confidence that there won’t be mandatory prayer and church attendance.
For Munch, it’s confidence that state issues and popular issues will be fairly balanced and given equal consideration.
For JohnBckWLD, it’s confidence that we won’t have mandatory abortions as a means of birth control, or re-education camps for political dissidents.
You have several issues from several people all over the political spectrum, confident that the “un-democratic” Senate is looking out for their best (or maybe just better) interests. If we can all agree that the Senate, as it currently exists, is just fine, you’re not going to find a whole lot of support for changing it.
Again, it isn’t an issue of just numbers; the Senate was never designed or intended to be populist or representative. Most Americans who have thought it through agree that that is a good thing, as evidenced by having multiple political viewpoints all agreeing:
Leave Our Senate Alone!
We’ve raised points at how more democratic isn’t always in everyone’s best interest. The Law Of Unintended Consequences doesn’t play partisan politics.
What might appease you more is to have many issues de-federalized and sent back down to state level, to more accurately reflect the local political persuasion. But since the last two elections seem to be turning the country into urban vs. rural (with the 'burbs somewhere in-between, literally and figuratively), that may not fix anything, and may actually make things worse.
Can you see Mormonism becoming the official state religion of Utah?
What if Idaho gets enough neo-Nazis, and decides it wants liebensraum?
If nothing else, I think some form of Electoral College reform may be in order (if for no other reason than to break the !@#$% two-party hammerlock on the American political process), but again, it is currently a state’s rights issue (how they apportion their Electors) and any attempt to federalize Elector apportionement would be, to put it mildly, an F5 political shitstorm.
Yeh, yeh, I know, I know. That’s the point of the post. I want the Senate to be proportionally representative! I want it to reflect majority opinion in a democratic fashion. Or I want to get rid of it. Either way, things are more democratic.
I admit, it’s impressive that people from all over the political spectrum can get together and sing Kumbaya over this. But seriously, folks, you haven’t pointed out how the new 435-member Senate would lead to this panoply of evils.
And don’t argue that you don’t have to, because it’s my place to say what the benefit of a 435-member senate is. I already have provided you with the justification for a 435-member senate - more democracy.
Again, I know what the Senate ws designed for. I want to change that design! I think it would make our government better if it were more democratic. Hell, forget the 435-member version - if you can divide the 100 members up into constituent districts that don’t follow state boundaries, that would be fine with me. But that would put us off-topic, and I’d rather not go there. Let’s leave it at 435 sens, with an equal amount of sens for reps for each state, for simplicity’s sake.
Funny! They can have Montana, for all I care. (I’d bet the Idaho dopers wouldn’t appreciate this, but it’s still funny!)
Seriously, though, I don’t see how these things will come about. SCOTUS would slap 'em down. Sure, the Mormons could go nuts for a few years in the meantime, but that doesn’t mean they’d win out in the end.
I think EC reform is great. As well as nearly politically impossible, as you point out. But that’s not the point of this post.
I’m not saying I have a crystal ball to see how things would change if the 435-senate were in place (or if the no-senate were in place). That’s what this post is for. I’m just saying that more democracy is better. You haven’t explained how these evils would arise.
BTW, I’m always curious about people’s nicknames. Does ExTank refer to that you used to be a tank driver?
And we have already pointed out how too much Democracy can be bad.
You’ve made interesting arguments, but nothing close to convincing a bi-partisan group that what you propose will be more beneficial than what we already have.
Just so I grasp this inane premise, you want to:
Get rid of the current (2 Member per state) Senate
Change the name of the House of Representitives to the US Senate,
Then set up a new legislative body called the House of Representitives - only with more members than the newly named Senate 
Am I right so far? So now we’re left with 2 legislative bodies that are identical (in that they’re both democratically proportional) and you want to know, would this lead to a “panoply of evils?”
OK, I’ll bite…What if the 5 most populated states (and a chief executive from one of them) started passing laws that solely benefited their citizens at the expense of the people in the other 45 smaller states? There are a million such hypothetical proposals I could thing of that even with Constitutional protections, could pass.
What it boils down to is you want a total democracy in a rebublic. I guess your 1st proposal should be to erase all political (town, county & state) borders - Then you can work on your Senate proposal. Either that, or keep an eye on how successful the Europeans EU experiment works out over time.
Hey, what’s so inane about it? But, yup, you just about got it. I would leave the HR alone, and solely deal with the Senate. Working with your set up, though, the only additional point I’d make is that after you change the name of the House to the Senate, you extend their terms to 6 years.
Let me get your hypo straight - you’re saying, for example, what if they passed a law saying, “Woo hoo, people that live east of the Mississippi and north of the Ohio get to get a free pass on taxes.” Or something along those lines. OK.
But the problem with your hypo is that it wouldn’t be just be 5 states; it would have to be 9 of them. Look at an electoral map and you can figure it out (don’t forget to subract 2 to get to the number of representatives). And here they are:
CA 53 IL 19
TX 32 OH 18
NY 29 MI 15
FL 25 GA 15
PA 19
For a total of 225, 7 more than the 218 needed to pass legislation. Ah, but don’t forget the 60% cloture rule, so they would have to get to 261. So they’ll also need:
NJ 13 IN 9
NC 13 MO 9
And that makes 13 states, for a total of 269 votes.
And if 13 states represents a majority of the country, well, tough noogies on the rest of the country. Because if a party can put together this group of states as a coalition, then god bless 'em, they can do whatever the hell they want, because they’re a supermajority.
But it ain’t gonna happen. Because of these 13 states, 6 went for Kerry, and 7 went for Bush. A coalition of these states as states isn’t going to happen. In fact, I would think that this would be a bigger problem under the current system, where low population states like Wyoming, Idaho, etc., have 2 senators and a disproportionate share of the power. So again, your proposed panoply of evils can’t come true, unless . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(wait for it)
.
.
.
.
.
a majority of the country wants it! (God forbid!)
And if the minority is so outraged by this, they have the power of the vote.
Really, though, Senate votes (or any votes, for that matter) don’t work on this state by state basis - except for pork issues, they’re gonna vote pretty much along party lines.
Nah, not a total democracy, just more of one. It would still be a representative democracy. Total democracy will be my next thread.
Aww, is this really too much? I think it’s just a good bit more.
And this 'tough noogies" mind-set is precisely why it’s a good thing to NOT have too much democracy.
But c’mon, it ain’t gonna happen!