You’d be surprised. A lot of votes are based on regional and local concerns, rather than partisan ones. The Northeast Dairy Compact, for example, tends to be supported by New England and New York congressional delegations regardless of political affiliation, and opposed by midwestern congrssional delegations regardless of political affiliation. A Florida congressman isn’t going to come out against Social Security, and a Nevada congressman isn’t going to call for increased restrictions on casino gambling.
This is now. And think about it. If the Northeast Dairy Compact, whatever the heck that is, is only the Northeastern states, it doesn’t have enough votes in the Senate (current Senate) to get enacted. So, to get the Northeast Dairy Compact going, they have to engage in politics = horse trade for votes. “I’ll vote for your compact if you vote for mine.” This is what representative government is all about. That’s all well and good (or bad, but that’s how politics is).
Why should this change under the 435-Senate?
I’ll answer my own question: because now it’s that much easier for the Northeast compact to get passed - they don’t need to swap as many votes. So if that means that Yucca Mountain becomes a depository for nuclear, sewage, and chicken waste, that’s too bad for Nevada. Because it’s not too bad for Nevada - it’s only too bad for the people living near Yucca Mountain. And by definition, that ain’t too many people, or else they would be able to oppose it.
See, let’s say that Yucca Mountain also happens to be close to a lot of Californians, across the border. If so, those Csenators would get riled up, and join in with the Nevada senators to oppose such a placement. If there ain’t enough of 'em, that’s too bad.
If the Northeast Dairy Compact, whatever the heck that is, is only the northeastern states, it doesn’t have enough votes in the Senate (current Senate) to get enacted. So, to get the Northeast Dairy Compact going, the northeastern states have to engage in politics = horse trade for votes. “I’ll vote for your compact (or whatever) if you vote for mine.” This is what representative government is all about. That’s all well and good (or bad, but that’s how politics is, and not the main point of this thread).
Why should this change under the 435-Senate?
I’ll answer my own question: because now it’s that much easier for the Northeast compact to get passed - they don’t need to swap as many votes. By why is that bad? It means politics becomes less political, and more about what’s good for the majority.
So if that means that Yucca Mountain becomes a depository for nuclear, recycling, and chicken waste, that’s too bad for Nevada. Because it’s not too bad for Nevada - it’s only too bad for the people living near Yucca Mtn. And by definition, that ain’t too many people, or else they would be able to oppose it. (Let’s not get into a discussion of whether Yucca Mtn is good or bad.)
So let’s say that Yucca Mtn also happens to be close to a lot of Californians, across the border. Those CA Senators would also get riled up, and join in with the Nevada senators, and whoever else they could politically hornswoggle into agreeing with them, to oppose such a placement. But, if there ain’t enough of 'em, that’s too bad (tough noogies, again), because it affects less people.
Mind you, I want to make clear that it isn’t the state of Nevada that’s being sht upon; Nevada is an entity. It doesn’t care if it’s sht upon. It’s the people who happen to live in Nevada that get sht upon. And it’s not even all of them getting sht upon, it’s only the ones closest to Yucca Mtn. But these people are in the extreme minority, and if they can’t muster up enough votes to protect themselves, they lose. That’s the way politics is played. And it’s only when the sh*tting is unconstitional that there’s a problem, and then SCOTUS can step in and wipe up the mess. 
Again, correct me if I’m wrong, but this is the system in Parliamentary government, isn’t it? Politics itself acts as a check on power, because the bastids know that they have to get reelected to keep their party in power. No one has addressed this.
Oops, finger slipped while typing. Ignore post # 82 in favor of #83.
And we don’t even want to give it a chance of happening. Generally speaking you have been very congenial in your arguments, which I applaud. However, you must not realize that your “tough shit” attitude to the idea of majority dominance just plain scares the hell out of most of us.
------------------------------------------
One problem that exists with the House of Representatives is redistricting. The problem is not only that populations change and representation needs to be adjusted, but gerrymandering occurs. It is fairly well established that the Republicans gained seats in Texas, because they controlled the redistricting. Of course, this is not an isolated case and both sides are guilty but by making the OP’s change in the Senate the problem would now apply to both houses of Congress.
The above also brings up a serious problem with the OP’s proposal. If Senators still serve for 6 years and alternate their terms so that 1/3 are elected every 2 years, How does redistricting take place? New districts are not created by adding new areas, but by drawing new lines. This means that the districts of the old 2/3s of Senators would overlap with the districts of the new 1/3. How is that going to work? 
Thanks for the compliment. I really have been trying to keep a nice conversational tone here (can’t we all just get along? 
), and I really do appreciate it.
Yeah, this is what I’m not quite understanding. What’s the big frickin’ deal? You’ve still got the anti-democratic cloture rule going for you. All I’m trying to do is make states less of a part of the equation, and the people more. Can someone use my Northeastern Compact example, or the Yucca Mtn example, or some other relatively real world example, to show me why this is so bad? The examples used so far don’t really work for me. I’m open to saying my idea sucks, but you gotta convince me!
Hmm. At first, I didn’t see your point here at all, but after thinking about it awhile, I think it’s a valid one, and as a result, I got some ‘splainin’ to do. The easy way around the redistricting problem is to go the proportional representation route, where the sens are allocated at large in the state by party vote. No redistricting problems there.
If you don’t like the at-large idea (and why not?), then I still don’t think it’s a big problem. Here’s your hypo: Let’s say after redistricting based on the 2010 census, NY (I keep using it as an example) loses one of its 29 senate seats, of course, right along with one of its House seats, and one of the sens and one of the reps will have to go. Redistricting takes place. They draw one set of new lines for both the sens and the reps.
But it would work just like it works now, just like it did in Texas where they pitted incumbent dems against incumbent dems in the same district. In 2012, 10 of the sens (1/3 of 29) will vie for 9 seats. The other 19 sens would keep their seats in their new respective districts, just the same way the incumbents in the Congressional Districts keep their seats after the lines are redrawn, but until the election takes place. Did I miss something?
And, of course, if you just eliminate the Senate outright, this redistricting thing is not a problem at all! 
Well, I found the “more democracy” argument uncompelling even before the “tough noogies” stuff started flying. Heck, I can picture a proposed law that says “All states with populations over five million are already contributing enough in income taxes, so they are are now freed from all other taxes.” That’d be popular in enough states to get through the House and the proposed 435-Senate. So it screws most of the south and midwest? Tough noogies, apparantly.
Besides, it rather rude to say things like “You’ve still got the anti-democratic cloture rule going for you” as though opposing the OP’s idea is part of an evil plan to thwart democracy. Rather, I think opposition to the OP’s idea comes from the completely reasonable stance that if implemented , it could quickly tear the country apart, resulting in less democracy.
Heck, if jgroub has already acknowledge that his idea has no chance of implelemenation, ewhy not go all-out and picture a nation with complete democracy? Circa 2030, all citizens have ultra-secure internet connections implanted in the brains. Every hour on the hour, a list of proposed laws is beamed to each citizen, who then must vote yea or nea (or abstain) on each one. Thus, the laws of the nation truly represent the wants of the people. You wouldn’t need congress or even the courts any more (all criminal/civil verdicts are put to a simple majority vote). You’d just need a President to make sure those laws get enforced, for as long as they last before being repealed. If this doesn’t sound palatable, then at what point does “more democratic” lose its appeal?
But laws also become easier to repeal. Consider that. A one-house legislature can acknowledge its mistakes and change course much more easily than a two-house legislature can.
Y’know, I’ve been thinking and thinking that this unequal taxation hypo is awfully fishy. Then I thought, why not go straight to the source? Here’s the Constitution for ya:
Article I. Section 2. Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
This has been modified by the 16th Amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
While the 16th Am. gave Congress the right to go beyond the states and tax people’s incomes directly, the part in Clause 3 about direct taxation being apportioned among the states is still applicable
And if you disagree with that, here is:
Article I. Section 2. Clause 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Uniform! So, sorry, these unequal taxation hypos just ain’t gonna cut the mustard.
I’m not quite sure from this paragraph, but you do know that I am the OPer?
If saying that cloture is anti-democratic is rude, I apologize. But why isn’t cloture anti-democratic? You’re requiring a supermajority to get something done.
Anyway, you guys haven’t shown me how the country could be “quickly torn apart” if changes to the Senate are made. Any other examples?
Yup, I admit there’s absolutely no shot of this. In fact, those were the first words out of my mouth, er, off of my fingertips. “Ignore any constitutional issues about how it can’t be done.” I think the entire “let’s get rid of the senate” movement has just one member - me, and that’s OK.
But there’s no shot at other threads posted in GD, including reforming the electoral college. All I can say is, if you don’t like purely hypothetical debates, then don’t get involved!
As for the last part of your post, I’ve already said (with a wink) that total democracy is my next thread. Let’s just concentrate on changing the Senate for now. It’s still representative democracy.
But your final question is right on target - how much democracy is too much? Why would the (admitted?) increase in democracy caused by changing the Senate be too much?
(Am I hijacking my own thread?)
I appreciate the philosophy, BrainGlutton, but are you really so sure? What sort of turnover rate does the house of representatives have? Would one session really be all that anxious to overturn a law passed by the previous session?
What if the new law itself made it even harder to infuse “new blood” into the legislative body. Would that really be easier to repeal as well?
I agree with your basic premise that a body which can pass laws more easily can more easily pass laws repealing older laws. However, if you look at it as a function of power I’m not sure it works out that way. A single body legislature simply has more power that that same body in a bicameral system. It may be true that such a body had more power to “grab” as well as more power to “ungrab”, but which do you suspect would really happen?
jgroub
Why the focus on the way Nebraska does it? Nebraska is the only state in the country with a unicameral legislature. Surely, it could be argued that democracy has already ruled on the matter and decided that a proportional house and a equal-representation house is the best way to do things. If we suddenly see a trend within the states to move to unicameral (or bicameral with both houses being proportionally elected), then I would say that you had a democratic argument. This appears to be a solution in search of a problem.
I disagree - democracy has NOT decided that a proportional house and an equal representation house is the best way to do things. This set up is only true at the federal level. In fact, democracy has decided the opposite - that if a state has a senate, it has to be along the lines of “one man, one vote” and not, for example, one county, one vote. (I apologize for SCOTUS’ sexism.)
I agree that there is no “problem” with the current Senate. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, right? However, I would argue that before the 17th Amendment came along to allow for direct election of senators, there wasn’t anything wrong either. But the 17th Amendment just made things that much more democratic. That’s all I’m suggesting here as well.
Can someone alert Bricker or John Mace, or one of those guys, about this thread? I’m sure they would be able to tear me and silly little proposition to shreds.
Well, yes.
Why are you citing the Constitution, anyway? A document that can only be changed by two-thirds of three fourths of state legislators, and not the people themselves? That sounds incredibly undemocratic! A document that says individuals’ right to freedom of expression can’t be stifled even if the majority really really really wants to? THAT’S SO UNDEMOCRACTIC IT MAKES ME WANT TO VOMIT IN TERROR!
Well, if you don’t like having your hypotheticals analyzed and their potential real-life flaws pointed out, then don’t start purely hypothetical debates, or any kind of debate. Heck, if we were to stay purely hypothetical, I may as well postulate what impression a 435-Senate might have on extraterristrial visitors. Maybe to them 435 is an unholy number, and finding that the Americans have no less than two legislative bodies of that size will so offend them that they’ll reduce the nation to cinders with their atomic zap-o-matic blasters.
Well, you can hypothetically change the Senate to anything you want; 435 members, a Playboy Bunny haven, a giant frozen yogourt bar, etc. So far, none of your hypoythetical changes seem to ahve convinced anyone that there will be an overall improvement, “more democratic” notwithstanding.
It’s too much when the system becomes unstable. The Senate serves the purpose of limiting the wild swings of the House, as other branches of the government limit Congress (and each other). It’s entirely possible the U.S. Government can continue to function without a Senate, or with a modified Senate. You just haven’t provided enough of a reason to change the current (mostly-)working system.
Somebody should.
Well, Bryan Ekers, I just read your post # 31 over in Kel Varnsen’s “kill your child” debate.
Excuse the snark, but based on that and the above, aren’t you quite the wet blanket? His thread is way sillier than mine!
Like Kel said there, don’t fight the hypothetical, man! Again, if you don’t like the question, don’t participate in the debate.
Listen, I get it, you all don’t think this is such a worthy topic. I will go crash my car and kill my child now. 
Hey, I gives 'em the seriousness they deserves.
Someone once said that a democracy couldn’t last very long. It would only last until the people discovered they could vote to give themselves lots of money and no taxes (well something like that). Most people read that and think "Boy the U.S. has really messed up that guy’s idea, but they are wrong. We have done it by not being too democratic. Right about now, someone will jump in and say “Have you seen the deficit lately, we are spending way too much!”. It may be that we’re a little too democratic already, so how about the idea of doing away with the House of Representatives or having the largest states have 3 representatives, the middle size states have 2 and the smallest have 1; all elected statewide? Not much interest there either, huh? 
We have a system of government where the power is shared between the Federal Government and each individual State Government. Remove the Senate from the equation and States would become nearly irrelevant. You might think that’s a good thing but I’d like someone in Washington looking out for the interest of my tiny state. Texas, New York, and California are overwhelming enough as it is.
Marc
Yeah, fuck it, lets just gut the Constitution.
**Jgroub, you asshole, get youruy head out of yuopoir ass. It works, don’t breaki it ryting to fix what aint broks.
Oh, damn.
jgroub, I’m sorry, I had no call to call you out like that. I was so blind drunk last night, I’m amazed my head is still attached (Scotch + Sake = ).
I had some bad personal stuff go down yesterday, and just melted down.
Again, I’m sorry.
An Important Distinction - Democracy vs. Republic
The Majority - Limited for Liberty
and how about these apples?
SYMPOSIUM
The American Senate by Lindsay Rogers
I’ve posted all these quotes, since the OP hasn’t been happy with other statements on limiting democracy.