I’ve been reading a lot lately about the nature of the Electoral College. It’s come up for debate in Maine, because the state is thinking about joining a compact that would award our electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of how the people in Maine actually voted. Supposedly this would take effect when enough states to determine the outcome of the election join the program.
The issue always seems to come down to “one person, one vote” vs “rural states should keep their influence.”
The thing is, the real power in the country is in the legislative branch. They are the ones with the power to declare war, to levy taxes, to pass laws, and to otherwise do things that can actually effect our day-to-day lives. The president is a fairly weak executive, with very limited authority by comparison He can’t really do much of anything without the approval of both houses of Congress. If we change the system of electing the president, that still leaves us with a legislative branch with the exact same power imbalance that folks complain about with the Electoral College. So shouldn’t we also abolish the Senate?
Among other things that the Senate does, is provide a brake on rash popular choices. (In the case of the current Senate, it provides a brake on well considered proposals when they’re from the “wrong” party, but eliminating the Senate would only move the location of the battles.)
The House is supposed to be the “Rah, rah, let’s get it done!” chamber giving voice to the people with a lower age to join, fewer protocols to observe, etc.
The Senate is supposed to be the deliberative chamber, requiring greater age to get in, with many odd protocols to be threaded to accomplish anything.
That is why it is often not a heavy burden to stampede the House into impeaching someone, but it is much more difficult to persuade the Senate to convict.
If you do not like the way that Senators are allocated by state, suggest a new manner to fill that body, but I am going to oppose any effort that results in a unicameral legislative body.
On one hand you have congress where members always have to worry about reelection every 2 years so I feel they make choices based on short term things while the senate, since they can wait 6 years, can see things for the long term.
So I think both are good. Sort of like the UK has the house of lords and house of commons.
First we had this thread alleging that “the Supreme Court is pretty much discredited garbage as an institution at this point”; now we have the current thread inviting us to abolish the Senate. Are we just getting rid of every branch of the U. S. Government today?
This, exactly. The % of people that would actually support abolishing the Senate is probably tiny (I can’t readily find a pollster that’s even bothered to ask because it’s such a fringe position).
For the record, I don’t actually think the Senate should be abolished. I was just posing the question because, for all the people who are upset by the electoral college system, nobody seems to even notice that the same disparity of representation exists in the legislative branch.
It seems logically inconsistent to me to care so much some states have proportionally more influence than others when electing the president, but otherwise not care that they have the same disproportionate influence in the legislative branch, especially given that the legislative branch is the one that actually has the authority to write laws, raise taxes, and otherwise do things that actually have a discernible impact on the average Joe’s daily life.
I’ve always figured that the E.C. was borne out of the same compromise that gave us a bicameral legislature, which is why each state got a number of votes equal to their representation in the legislature. So why is it the E.C. takes the brunt of people’s ire these days? But the bicameral legislature does not?
I’ll stick up for CoastalMaineiac’s question. Wyoming, with .17% of the population of the United States should get to elect two U.S. Senators because. . . why exactly? Why should a state with the population of Albuquerque control 1/50 of the voting rights in the Senate? It’s even more disproportionate when you consider that individual Senators are particularly powerful compared to House members, due to the hold, the filibuster, the need for unanimous consent to conduct much of the chamber’s business, etc.
And I’m simply dumbfounded by anyone who continues to view the Senate as the more “deliberative” body. Slower, sure, but point to a recent example where the high-minded deliberation of the Senate tempered the rash action of the House.
Because that’s what was agreed upon in the beginning. If you want to change that, they even provided you a mechanism for doing so. I guess it’s time to fire up your “let’s abolish the Senate” campaign. Good luck (you’ll need it).
Count me in this group. I’m very strongly in favor of abolishing the Electoral College. But I have no substantial objection to the way the Senate is elected (and I’m from a large state which is presumably getting screwed by this).
The point made was that was the designers’ intent, not that the machinations of McConnell, using his arcane knowledge of the rules to destroy the nation, was a good thing.
I still believe that having two houses puts limits on the ability of various groups to railroad panic legislation on the country. It does rely on the members of both houses to act in good faith, but so does the presidency and it is currently in failure, as well. I am open to reform, but not if the baby splashes in the street alongside the bath water.
Abolishing it would never happen. Reforming it wouldn’t be a bad idea.
If I could snap my fingers and change it: We keep it two senators directly elected by the people from each state, but instead of one Senator casting one vote, each senator’s vote is proportional to the population of his or her state.
So you take each state’s population and each Senator casts a vote representing half of that.
This way, the Senate can still be the deliberative body, Senators still represent the interests of their state rather than their district, but now every state is more accurately represented, as are its citizens.
If you want to see what the US Senate looks like in this situation with the current Senate:
Democrats cast about 162,732,000 votes.
Republicans cast about 145,073,000 votes.
Independents cast about 976,000 votes.
The Independents both caucus with the Dems, which gives Dems control, 53-47%. Not filibuster-proof, and not even a lock for Dems to hold onto going forward. But definitely more fair and representative.
That’s the logically inconsistent part to me. It bothers you that your state is getting screwed by the E.C., but not that it is getting screwed, in almost exactly the same proportions, in the legislative branch. Do you feel that how much influence you (as an individual voter) have in choosing the president is more important than how much influence you (again, as an individual voter) have in shaping the laws, rules, and regulations that we all must follow? If so, why?
If you’re going to abolish anything, abolish the presidency. Abolish the executive branch, and have a bicameral legislative branch in which the majority can enable a foreign minister on his/her behalf.
Half the country is represented by 18 senators. The other half is represented by 82.
We might be stuck with this because it would be very difficult to change, but the current situation is plainly unfair and I’m pretty sure not what the founders had in mind.
Almost as shocking as your frequent calls for the elimination of Gerrymandering where Republicans have won disproportionate representation based on the popular vote.
Oh, wait; that has not happened.
Let’s stick to the actual discussion and leave partisan sniping for a different thread, (preferably the Pit).
I know you said in the OP that you feel the President is a weak executive. I disagree. I feel that the President, as one individual, has power that is comparable to the collective power of Congress. A Senator is one percent of a body that is fifty percent of Congress. So I feel a President is about two hundred times as powerful as a Senator and my relative concern over how they’re elected reflects this.
The Constitution provides that NO amendment may ever be had which denies a state its equal representation in the Senate, so any proposal along these lines is a non-starter.