Should the United States Senate be abolished?

Great Debates
41

tomyoung, you said, “Why shouldn’t we go back to having our senators elected by congress.” Correction: Senators never were elected by the House of Representatives. They were elected by their state legislatures, before the 17th Amendment, which provided for their election by the voters of their states. At the moment, Razorsharp has a thread going on in the GD forum, “A call to repeal the 17th Amendment.” His position (more or less) is that we should go back to the old system because the new system makes senators too vulnerable to influence by special interests.

I think we need a one-house Congress, but I wouldn’t be averse to giving the state governments, as entities, some kind of direct representation in it: Say, we increase the House to 900 members. 300 are elected by single-member-districts as at present, or by the multi-member-district form of proportional representation; 300 are elected by straight party-list proportional representation; and 300 are elected by state legislatures – but NOT on an equal-representation-per-state basis – rather, the 300 representatives would be allocated among the states based on their population. The Montana legislature could elect one or two reps, the California legislature a couple of dozen (no time right now to do the math).

But I guess this idea should be discussed in a different thread.

42

Brainglutton, thanks for clearing that up. I would be interested in seeing the average numbers of people per congressman in early days of our democracy and comparing it to today. I like your idea of expanding the House. I hear there are districts in California that have 300,000 people in them. (Cite, anyone?) It seems to me that if you restrict the number of Representatives in the House to 435, and our country continues to grow, we will eventually run into the same distortions of representation there that we are discussing re:the Senate. It will be a defacto two-Senate system, something the founders most certainly did not intend. But small states have all the power, so I’m sure they’ll fight to make sure that happens.

43

**

Actually, I am not wrong. Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” So it doesn’t seem as though the Senate has the same power as House members to introduce bills. Sure, the Senate can propose bills but unless someone in the House wants to pick it up it won’t go anywhere.

What the heck, I was wrong about that undemocratic thing.

Marc

44

Mgibson: that clause just means that bills relating to taxes (and arguably for appropriations) must originate in the House of Representatives. Senators are not handcuffed from introducing bills on any subject.

tomyoung - "What I don’t understand is: when legislation which is supported by a majority of the country, its congressmen, and the president is blocked by the Senate, exactly what interest is served, and why is it so compelling to you who support it? "

What are you thinking of, exactly? In the absence of specifics, the whole point of having a Senate is that the rights of the minority are afforded some degree of protection before some harm comes to them. The Senate, by its rules and by its construction in the Constitution, is a body that promotes consensus at the expense of the democratic 50%-plus-one principle.

That is just fine with me. I’d rather have a government that has institutions to strive for consensus, whenever practicable, rather than having laws crammed down the throat of the people by the political hooligans and partisans in the House of Representatives, with their gerrymandered districts and their constant electioneering.
Thank God for the Senate. Without it, there would now be no debate about whether Bush’s tax cut package is a wise idea or not. Without a Senate, Clinton’s health care plan from 1993 would now be law.

The question has been asked, what has the Senate ever come up with that has improved our country? What a misleading question. The Senate alone is not responsible for making laws, that power is shared with the House. Success has a thousand fathers, remember?

But let me throw out some notable pieces of legislation with which senators (arguably) took a greater leadership position than their House counterparts: Jeffords and Kennedy on the No Child Left Behind Act. McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction in the 80s. Goldwater-Nichols reform of the Department of Defense in 1986. The Byrd Rule on enforcing budget discipline.

It is a vast and inaccurate exaggeration to say that the Senate simply serves as a graveyard for legislation.

45

I dont believe that is a prudent course of action.

Havent you heard of the adage, “if it aint broke, dont fix it.” ?

You are quite right. My apologies for my lack of diligence. I appreciate you bringing that to my attention.

Sounds more like the fault needs to be corrected in the senators themselves and not the system.

Please note that our nation is named The United States of America. Not the republic of America or the democratic peoples of America or even just America. We are commonly known as the US, The United States. The powers given to individual states were made so that a larger state does not overwhelm a smaller state as what you are proposing to do. If you remove all state borders, their independent governments, their laws and legislation unique only to them, their commerce practices, their individuality as a state, then you have a very good reason to remove the senate. One big nation deserves one big congress.

How do we know if they had too much? You make an ammendment to the constitution if they do. That requires a majority of all the states to create and they will assess if what they are proposing to do to the little state wont come back and bite them in the ass at a later time. Checks and balances. gotta love them.

By whose rights are you refering to? The rights given in the constitution that upholds state rights or the rights of the residents of another state to dictate policy of a smaller, less populous state? As might does not make right, majority does not always rule.

In a way, what he says is that if the smaller states are unable to get what they want because the other states have more people (and more land to keep them in) to vote with, then they would resort to means other than what was agreed on the constitution. I believe the 13 colonies of the americas did the exact same thing to england. Can we fault the smaller states to resort to “other” means if they feel they are not being fairly represented?

so what are you saying? We should abolish the senate because no other country in the world can or is willing to reproduce it? Doesnt that make us unique, not dysfunctional?

46

Here is one advantage to the Senate which nobody has mentioned–it is the only legislative body in America, at either the federal or state level, which cannot be gerrymandered. The evil of gerrymandering, fed by increasingly sophisticated mapping software, has grown to the point where some 95% of all House districts will never see a competitive general election again. Instead of voters picking the politicians, the politicians pick the voters. Something like 98% of House incumbents seeking reelection win.

Personally, if I had to give up either my House or Senate representation, I’d gladly blow off the House. My Representative is a lifer who will hold his seat until he retires or dies and never faces meaningful opposition. For the Senate, in contrast, here in Illinois we usually (not always) see a competitive election between two well-financed candidates. My situation is not atypical.

This is ironic because the House was designed to be the branch which more closely reflects swings in popular opinion. But thanks to gerrymandering and other advantages of incumbency, it no longer does. The Senate at least provides an occasional meaningful election.

47

The U.S. is NOT the “Democratic Republic of America”. It is however, the ** United States ** of America. Meaning it’s a union of sovereign states, with a federal goverment there to deal with the states and mediate among them. At a federal level, we’re not a democracy, we’re a republic. At a state and local level, we can be more or less democratic depending on the state you happen to live in.

At the federal level, we have the House of Representatives, which has representatives elected to it by each state in proportion to their population, meaning that each state gets representation in Congress in proportion to their population.

The Senate on the other hand, is more a forum for the states’ voices independent of population. Each state gets 2 senators who are elected for longer terms than representatives. However, the election of senators is not guaranteed at a federal level. The constitution in Article I, section 3 states: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof So in theory, a state legislature could grant the power to appoint senators to the governor and completely bypass the populace in that state.

The idea behind all this is that larger states get more representation in the lower house because of population, but smaller ones get equal say at the senate level.

There are other ways of doing federal systems, but they all revolve around having fixed representation for areas and proportional representation (see Germany). There’s just no way to have a federal system without that combination.

And contrary to what you say, the top 10 states in the Union account for 236 of 435 congressmen, well more than half, yet only 20% of the states. That’s why the Senate’s needed- to keep the top 10 states from running away and doing stuff that might affect the other 40!

Cite: http://www.electiondataservices.com/20001228.HTM

48

Sorry, no. Even when the quoted clause was still valid, each state’s senators were chosen–as the Constitution originally required–“by the legislature.” A legislature could never delegate its choice to the governor (although, under the Constitution as originally ratified, a governor could fill a vacancy that occurred during a legislative recess until the legislature reconvened–but the governor’s authority in such a case derived from the Constitution itself, not from a legislative grant). But that clause was superseded by the 17th amendment:

The Constitution today requires a popular election. No other process is constitutional.

49

Thank you, bump, for stating the problem so succinctly. Yes, the United States is a republic, not a democracy. That is precisely what is wrong with it.

50

Bump and X-Slayer, I don’t think you’re quite hearing my point. Admittedly, I don’t think that I’m exactly arguing for the OP, but let me restate.

Bump said: “The idea behind all this is that larger states get more representation in the lower house because of population, but smaller ones get equal say at the senate level.”

But I have clearly shown that small states are, in fact, dominating the big states – they are getting an overwhelming say. Please address the table I linked to that shows, for example, how California is running a 58 billion dollar balance of payment deficit with the federal govt while small states all run surpluses. As it stands now, your unwillingness to address this makes your advocacy for state-state equality highly dubious – until you speak up, I will have to assume that you are actually in favor of our biggest, most dynamic parts of the country being bled dry by the backwaters. X-Slayer, on this subject all you said was that you see it differently, but you provided no reasons for your view at all. Next time, please provide empirical evidence you have that the balance of power in the legislative branch is not slanted heavily toward small states, or at least some reasoning I can respond to.

Further, the data I linked to indicate that the Senate has so fully tipped the scales in favor of small states (which already have too much power to block const. amendments and in the electoral college) that it has effectively negated the influence of the House, which exists specifically in order to provide proportional representation. So add this to the list of criticisms of the Senate.

Also, I don’t think that the Senate is only a graveyard for legislation, but it is clearly not living up to the deliberative, productive function that the founders intended, either. It is the sick man of our legislative branch, and some kind of change is needed. Personally I would not argue for outright abolition, but I would be in favor of making the Senate more proportional. Keeping it somewhat skewed in favor of small states would satisfy all of the defenses of the Senate made on this thread; why not make it so that state senate delegations are calculated to be halfway between their actual population proportion and what we have now, with special, highly unfair and outsized representation for small states? Or let’s say that the bottom 24 states with 12% of the population should only get, say, 24% of the Senate representation, instead of their current 44% affirmative-action-special-right level.

I’m glad we all agree that the Senate’s current 2-senators-per-state rule came about as a compromise, and not because of the founders’ profound foresight. It was just a compromise, nothing more; and once it begins to infringe upon the citizens’ right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as it slowly has, it should be revised or discarded like other constitutional relics. Here’s our Declaration on life, liberty, yadda: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Our system was intended to be changed. So please, from now on, be a patriot and refrain from appealing to the “it’s there so we shouldn’t change it” defense, as this is not rational argument but instead some kind of superstition. :wink:

And I can’t believe no one is interested in the fact that other countries aren’t interested in using our system, and that in places where it has been used (like Brazil) it’s failed to address persistent problems. All I’m saying is that the rest of the world copies all kind of things from us, and that the fact that they choose not to copy this aspect should raise questions in your mind.

JKlann, I fully agree that gerrymandering is screwing up the democratic process. I think the House should abolish districts, with all congressmen elected by state-wide contests. But that is another topic.

51

It’s much simpler in the DPRK with The Dear Leader.

:smiley:

52

Nicely argued, BrainGlutton. Looks like you are going to carry the point. Can anyone going offer a reasonable argument for continuing the existence of our Senate?

Now in the interests of fighting ignorance, and I guess for the sheer joy of hearing myself speak, I’ll digress along with everyone else to comment on the founding of our constitution which is an area of interst for me. A valuable online resource is the Avalon Project which hosts, among other documents, The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787.

Readers shouldn’t assume that Gunning Bedford’s comment was met by shocked gasps and cries of “Treason!” This sort of thing was common in the Critical Period and indeed the possibility that the union might break up that was the crisis from which the period takes its name. Other such talk are recorded by Madison at Philadelphia though the large staters had no need to suppose a strong foreign alliance to survive without the others. In response to Bedford and the other small staters winning the Connecticut Compromise by a slim majority Edmund Randolph ( July 16th ) , then governor of Virginia, called for adjournment for the large staters to consider other options which he, pointedly one assumes, refused to detail. John Rutledge and Charles Coatsworth Pinckney ( August 21st and 22nd respectively ) drew a similar line in the sand over the issue of slavery.

Not to mention the irony of Robert Dahl accusing a delegate of treason for threatening to break off into a new union if necessary while the Constitutional Convention was agreeing to break from the current union. Lets not forget that the Constitution created a new union of at least nine states superceding, for those states at least, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. As it happened when President Washington took office only North Carolina and Rhode Island remained outside the new union.

“The Great Compromise” is not a term I prefer, see a previous thread of mine in this forum. I believe that “Connecticut Compromise” is more appropriate. But whatever you call it BrainGlutton is right. It was a compromise between the Virginia Plan ( May 29th ) and the New Jersey Plan ( June 15th ). The compromise reached is more fundamental than people usually credit.

The first plan calls for a bicameral Congress with the lower house elected by The People and the upper house by the lower from a list of names provided by each state legislature. The 2nd plan merely strenghtens the current federation rather than create a radical new government. It leaves the unicameral Congress unchanged so that each state legislature continues to appoint 2 to seven delegates to cast its single vote. The first plan is almost completely national. The second is federal. The Connecticut Compromise creates a government that is partly national and partly federal. Representation in the lower house was by population and by popular vote. That is, the new government was formed, in part, directly from The People. Representation in the upper house was by state with each state given the same number of votes. Thus a new “mixed” government was created. ( See Madison in Federalist #39. )

Alexander Hamilton’s plan ( June 18th ) isn’t talked about much today for the simple reason that it wasn’t talked about back then. The sources we have for the Federal Convention are limited and none record why Hamilton offered his plan or how it was received. Thus historians are free to come up with their own possiblities but none can be verified. So it is a dead end. And the plan itself was not really an alternative. There was no chance of it being enacted and the Convention never bothered to debate it. A fourth plan exists. It was offered by Charles Pinckney on the same day as Randolph presented the Virginia Plan. It was never seriously considered by the Convention either though it was referred to the Committee of Detail ( July 26th ) where it may have become a source of constitutional terminology.

An important thing to remember concerning these plans is that they weren’t widely known. The Convention was meeting in secret ( See May 29th yet again ) which they took very seriously. ( See William Pierce’s anecdote about how seriously Washington took a potential leak. ) Indeed, there was some thought to destroy the meager official record so the information couldn’t be used against them later ( September 17th ). Very little information was recorded at the time and as such little has passed down to us. Our best resource are Madison’s notes which weren’t made public until 1840, four years after his passing. So while the Framers lived people were generally ignorant of what happened to such an extent that Charles Pinckney was able to falsely claim authorship of the plan that formed the backbone of the Constitution.

In short, we shouldn’t assume that Hamilton’s plan wouldn’t have discredited him to some degree if made public. On the contrary, in 1787:The Grand Convention Clinton Rossiter offers the possibility that the publishing of the plan in Massachusetts in 1802 ( 2 years before Hamilton died ) might be the work of Robert Yates or John Lansing. Seeing as these were the “Antifederalist” delegates to the Convention that returned to New York when they saw where it was headed it seems that the Clinton Rossiter is suggesting that outing Hamilton was a political move by his opponents. It seems likely that his “high toned” plan would have thrown mud on his name if it became common knowledge.

53

The 2 major “reforms” that have probably had the most negative impact on the Federal legislative branch:

  1. The 17th Amendment, as cited by brianmelendez, which in my opinion made this country even less of a republic & turned the Senate into a club of politicized attorneys who have to run around campaigning and kissing babies.

  2. The “Senatization” of the House of Representatives when membership was, as some would argue: illegally, frozen at 435 members. The “People’s House” which originally had a 1:62000 Representative to citizen ratio now is somewhere in excess of 1 in 650,000.

I Wonder:
What would happen to the political make-up of the US Senate if Larger States Like:

Texas, which reserved the right to seperate into 6 States,
or
California, which has a substantial North / South politicial divide
or
New York, where talk of a NYC or Long Island secession pops up every decade or so.

Actually went and subdivided. The dilution of each member’s power might not be such a bad thing.

54

Hm. My copy of the constitution says in Article IV, Section 4 that “The United States shall gauranteeto every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government …”

55

What constitutes a “Republican Form of Government” for purposes of Article IV, Section 4, has never really been put to the test. But in any case it applies only to the state governments – all of which are organized on such similar lines that one looks just as republican as the next. This thread is about restructuring the legislative branch of the federal government. Let’s try to stay on-topic.

56

Well, I was just trying to set the record straight on what the Constitution says.

My interpretation is that the OP basically contends that the republican system as set out in the USC should be re-configured to be more “democratic”. And “Why should we keep the Senate in its present form?”. Of course the most common rejoinder is that the Senate in its structure provides a check against majority tyranny imposed by more populous states on less populated ones. Also that is serves to temper the legislative process.

I see two proposals offered. One is to dissolve the Senate and shift its powers to a single House. The other is to keep the Senate but have its numbers be proportioned according to population. Actually, given the current numbers in House and Senate, I might be in favor of experimenting with the first proposal for a year or so and maybe we could get some Federal judges appointed and some tax cuts passed.

Kidding aside, it seems the debate really is representative republic vs. pure democracy. “Somewhere in between” doesn’t work because it’s still a representative republic. Any representative system is vulnerable to irregularities. For one, a representative is not and cannot be legally bound to vote according to the wishes of his constituency and indeed can be corrupted against doing so. Second, as it stands now, the number of constituents varies from one House member to the next, so that a Congressman with 50,000 constituents has as much voting power as does one with 150,000. This is really no more democratic than the Senate.

The claim that “… no state or conceivable coalition of states would be in a position to try to dominate the Union and put its own regional priorities ahead of all the rest.” either reflects extreme naivete or is a something like a cheap parlor trick. The disengenuousness of this statement is betrayed by the refrain in this thread that a majority of (small state) Senators have gotten the best of the minority of (large state) Senators with a Robin Hood style revenue transfer from more populated (“rich”) to lesser populated (“poor”) states. In fact, this apparent democratic (one senator-one vote) tyranny by (democratically elected) senators is exactly the point being made over and over in support of keeping the 2-per state senate.

I don’t particularly care for a real democracy because I don’t want to spend a bunch of my time and energy deliberating and voting on legislation. Furthermore, I don’t particulalry care for a “more efficient government”. There’s not a political thread on this board that doesn’t include some irrefutable complaint about the corruption of elected office-holders. Corruption is certainly one thing I’d rather not see made “more efficient”.

If, however, a “true democracy” wins out and replaces our republic, I request the stipulation that there must be a national quorum in every election, and that if one is not met, “None of the Above” or “No Decision” wins by default and the seat goes empty or the bill dies.

57

chigger, the debate is not “representative republic vs. pure democracy.” “Pure democracy” is impossible for any community larger than a Swiss canton. A nation of 275 million (is that the figure now?) cannot have a town meeting; Ross Perot’s idea for an “electronic town meeting” sounds exciting until you think about it for five minutes, comparing it with the kind of meeting where people talk face-to-face and ask the chair for permission to speak. And, as I explained above, I’m not in favor of submitting every question to a referendum. Representative democracy, with an elected multimember policymaking body small enough to have face-to-face meetings and two-way discussions, is the best way. The question is what kind of representative system we are going to have.

As for the small states, who are overrepresented in the Senate at present – they’re not dominating the Union, they’re merely using their votes for leverage, quite effectively. My point was, times have changed since 1787. No state, or combination of states, predominates in the House of Representatives. There are regional interest blocs but they are never absolute; depending on the issue in question, party loyalties can cut across geographic loyalties. I don’t see how abolishing the Senate would change any of that.

When we talk about making government more efficient, we’re usually talking about he executive branch. Simplifying Congress would make the supervisory policymaking process more efficient. That might or might not translate into more efficiency on the part of the executive-branch civil servants. I think it would. At any rate, as I keep saying, abolishing the Senate would make Congress stronger in relation to the executive. Which is what we need. Nobody on this thread has yet contradicted that essential point. (Or agreed with it, either. Are you all completely uninterested in separation-of-powers issues?)

As for corruption, it thrives quite well on inefficiency and complexity, as the Senate’s history shows clearly enough. Often, inefficiency is a more fertile environment for corruption than efficiency. Look around the world. As a general rule, the most corrupt governments are also the most complex, inefficient and ineffectual; the cleanest governments are the most efficient, simple and transparent. There must be exceptions, but as a general rule this is true. Inefficiency provides corrupt officials with a lot more shadows and corners to hide their malfeasance.

Adding “none of the above” as a ballot option is an interesting idea and deserves its own thread. Why don’t you post one? As Libertarians have sometimes pointed out to me, no matter who you vote for, the GOVERNMENT always gets elected. As if that were a bad thing. We need a government, chigger, and we need a government without a whole lot of vacant offices and missing pieces. But if you want to make a case for “none of the above,” bring it on!

58

All right, I’ll argue it. The most effective legislative supervision (or harassment, depending on your point of view) of the executive comes when an opposite party controls a house of Congress. With majority control comes the power to appoint committee chairmen, issue subpoenas, and launch investigations. Just as a matter of arithmetic, that will happen 75% of the time with a bicameral Congress and only 50% with a unicameral.

I think that the reasons for the expansion of the presidency at the expense of Congress lie in factors beyond the ability of any legislature–unicameral or otherwise–to control. The primary driver has been the emergence of the United States as a world superpower, with the concomitant emphasis on diplomatic and military policy, which have always lain largely within the president’s control. Another driver has been the growth of national media, which provide a platform to the president that they don’t to legislative leaders. Even though I agree that these aren’t entirely good things, I don’t see that switching to a unicameral legislature will make them go away.

59

Not really. That link goes to a commercial site operated by a private company that operates tours; its content is pretty good, but is geared toward attracting and entertaining prospective customers. The primary sources tell a different story. See Texas into 5 States?

60

You want to support the separation of powers by eliminating one half of Congress? Sounds to me like, “We had to burn the villiage in order to save it.” If you want to talk about checks and balances, the best check on executive power is a legislative branch that is afforded the opportunity to debate, and at times reject, proposals by the Chief Executive. That is the forte of the Senate. Forget all the “small states are overrepresented” arguments, the real core of the Senate is the ability to put the brakes on legislative action. It would be a huge mistake to take away this fundamental check.

And you simply must provide some kind of evidence to back up your view of corrupt governments. Having lived in China in recent years, I can tell you firsthand that the government is, at times, complex, simple, inefficient, deadly efficient, ineffectual, too effectual, but never transparent and always corrupt.

Further, do you really mean to argue that abolishing the Senate will somehow clean up our government? Is the Senate really unique in being a cesspool of graft and impure interests, not shared by other levels of elected office? And just how big a problem do you think corruption is in the United States?