# Should we abolish the Senate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 2, 2019, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-senate/834903 "2019-06-02T00:50:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2019, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-senate/834903/41 "2019-06-02T18:22:53Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > States insisted? How do states communicate? I’ve live in a state all my life and I’ve never heard it say a word. > > States don’t talk. People talk. So explain why a person who lives in Wyoming should have more representation than a person who lives in California. Because we are a collection of 50 individual states, not just one nation. The Senate doesn’t represent you. It’s supposed to represent the interests of the States. And there is more to a State than just it’s population. Its it’s natural resources, it’s commerce and industry, it’s agriculture, etc. And our nation doesn’t work if each of the states are not equal. If a State’s worth in our legislature was based solely on population; what incentive would a state like WY or ID have to join the Union in the first place? And then where would we be? (dont forget WY has Yellowstone). The problem arises because we have two houses of Congress representing the interest of two separate groups voting on **all** legislation. We should segregate their responsibilities. The Senate should be mainly concerned with things that effect the States: such as interstate commerce, infrastructure, energy, national security, foreign relations. . . Just to name a few. The House should be concerned with things that concern the citizens: Treasury, Education, HHS, Labor and the like. And both Houses should vote only on things that effect both groups; such as Justice, transportation, immigration, budget, etc. We have to remember, the individual states were more like separate nations 250 years ago and Congress was initially conceived as a body concerned with managing relations between those “nations.” The rights of the people to govern themselves in a representative way was a new concept back then. And the best way the Founding Fathers knew to deal with this new kind of nation was a bicameral Congress. I think its still a good idea. It just needs a few tweaks. And we all have to remember that we are more than just the sum of our population. mc ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2019, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-senate/834903/42 "2019-06-02T18:57:48Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > States insisted? How do states communicate? I’ve live in a state all my life and I’ve never heard it say a word. > > States don’t talk. People talk. So explain why a person who lives in Wyoming should have more representation than a person who lives in California. It’s no use, it will just go around and around in circles that that was how the founding fathers, in their perfect infallibility and prognostication determined it to be. Just because the disparity between the largest and smallest at the time was about 10 to one, and now it is closer to 100 to 1 doesn’t mean that anything has changed. Since the majority of the population is represented by the minority of the senate, then that is something that cannot be easily undone. It was a deal made in good faith for the good of the nation. A sharing of power between the wealthier, more populous states, and the smaller ones that couldn’t have stood on their own, but still held out until the larger states gave in and gave them power disproportionate to the people. There are many proposals that could make it fairer. There are many ways to make it better reflect the ideals of a democracy. But that would require those who currently hold an undemocratic amount of power to actually concede to giving up some of that power in the name of democracy and for the good of the country. Those who hold to the status quo are not wrong that it is a difficult, if not impossible task, to rebalance the scales in favor of the people. I personally find that to be an undemocratic position to hold, but unfortunately, it only takes a small minority of the people who that imbalance favors to hold that opinion in order to keep it in place. It’d be a bit like people trying to vote out a despot. The despot doesn’t care that the people are against him, he has the power, and that is all that matters. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2019, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-senate/834903/43 "2019-06-02T19:16:37Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > And I mean really, it’s _so_ shockingly ‘unfair’ that the Senate is composed the way it’s written in the Constitution and has always been. I mean who knew, right? Also hard to imagine why smaller states insisted that future reduction of their Senate representation not even be subject to the amendment process but each one’s consent. Why would they have ever done that? Trite sarcasm doesn’t make a wrong point less wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Sensitive](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/58956e/32.png) [@Darth\_Sensitive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Sensitive)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2019, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-senate/834903/44 "2019-06-02T22:16:54Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Technically, it says no state can be denied equal representation without its consent. So I think an amendment giving proportional Senate representation would be legal if it was ratified by all fifty states. Which admittedly is unlikely to happen (we all know how difficult North Dakota can be). > > Of course, there’s nothing that prohibits abolishing the Senate. If that was done, each state would still have equal representation ie zero. You don’t need a single 50 state approved amendment, just two amendments that meet the standard amendment bar. Amendment A strikes the clause requiring equal representation in the senate. Amendment B changes the senate to something new. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2019, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-senate/834903/45 "2019-06-02T22:26:15Z")
> [@flurb](#): > > 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. Then the people of California would vote to move millions of their extra people out there. Californians could also vote to remove any other states water rights. The far left of San Fransisco would have no conservative balance. Ok, maybe not but you get the picture. The senate forces the country as a whole to consider the views of the smaller states. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2019, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-senate/834903/46 "2019-06-02T22:55:45Z")
The views of the smaller states should be considered in proportion to their population. That argument has always been and always will be the dumbest fucking shit that any non-trivial amount of people hold. Hamilton had it right from the beginning: > [@](#): > > Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Delaware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense. It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third. And the situation is far worse today and will continue to get worse. We’re going to have a situation within our lifetimes where ~25% of the population has a strangelhold on all legislation and all political nominees including the supreme court. Large states where extorted into accepting the compromise when the constitution was written, but it’s an insane system that is fundamentally broken under actual geographic distribution of people. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2019, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-senate/834903/47 "2019-06-02T23:39:09Z")
It was a compromise the larger states were free to reject. That they didn’t is no evidence of extortion. If the people want more power then vote to start partitioning some of the larger states. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2019, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-senate/834903/48 "2019-06-02T23:44:45Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > States insisted? How do states communicate? I’ve live in a state all my life and I’ve never heard it say a word. > > States don’t talk. People talk. So explain why a person who lives in Wyoming should have more representation than a person who lives in California. Why should the US give up its disproportionate power in the world and the UN? Why not extend the concept of one person one vote globally? You willing to give up that power or do you only advocate changes in power structure that benefits you and your ideology? Honestly, the concept that certain territories labeled states or cities have certain levels of power is not that absurd or abstract since it’s only been this way for thousands of years in one form or another. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2019, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-senate/834903/49 "2019-06-02T23:51:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **mikecurtis** : > > Because we are a collection of 50 individual states, not just one nation. > The Senate doesn’t represent you. It’s supposed to represent the interests of the States. And there is more to a State than just it’s population. Its it’s natural resources, it’s commerce and industry, it’s agriculture, etc. And so we have a situation where the state with the most population, _and_ the most natural resources, _and_ the most commerce and industry, _and_ the most agriculture, nonetheless has the weakest representation in the Senate. > [@](#): > > And our nation doesn’t work if each of the states are not equal. If a State’s worth in our legislature was based solely on population; what incentive would a state like WY or ID have to join the Union in the first place? And then where would we be? (dont forget WY has Yellowstone). If Wyoming or Idaho didn’t join, then they’d be suffering greatly, and the rest of the nation would barely even notice. California would be able to go it along as an independent nation; there’s no way that Wyoming could. > [@](#): > > Quoth **Urbanredneck** : > > Then the people of California would vote to move millions of their extra people out there. Why would they do that? If millions of Californians want to move to Wyoming, they can already do that. There’s no need to vote for anything to make that happen. ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-senate/834903/50 "2019-06-03T00:26:05Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And so we have a situation where the state with the most population, _and_ the most natural resources, _and_ the most commerce and industry, _and_ the most agriculture, nonetheless has the weakest representation in the Senate. And in the House we have the opposite problem. States like Ca (and NY and IL) can dictate what happens inside a state like UT. Why should the citizens of L.A. have more say about what happens in Bears Ears, fer instance, than the people who actually live in UT? If it wasn’t for equal representation in the Senate there would be **NO** interstate highways in HI. Why would I, as a citizen of Chicago ever vote to approve spending my taxes on bridges in the middle of nowhere MT? And while I realize that its not a perfect analogy; **octopus** ’ point is apt. China has 5x the population of USA. Should the Chinese get 5x the voting power in the UN? mc ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-senate/834903/51 "2019-06-03T00:48:37Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I see what you are saying, but that also seems like a hypertextual reading of that clause. Also it belies experience as West Virginia was formed entirely from Virginia. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That was obviously a special case. The legal position is that West Virginia was formed with the consent of Virginia. Of course at the time most Virginian legislators didn’t show up at the convention in Wheeling where West Virginian statehood was under discussion; they were gathered in Richmond. But the legislators who chose to show up in Wheeling were deemed to be the legal government of Virginia and they voted to split the state in half and form a new state. > > A few years later, when the rest of Virginia was being readmitted to its regular status in the United States, they voted to retroactively consent to the formation of West Virginia. Add Kentucky, split also directly from being part of Virginia, and Maine, spun off directly from being part of Massachusetts, each with the respective assent of the parent commonwealth’s legislature . So it is established that creating a state from whithin other can happen if you can get it to pass both in Congress, and in what Congress recognizes as that state’s legislature. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-senate/834903/52 "2019-06-03T02:49:57Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Why should the US give up its disproportionate power in the world and the UN? Why not extend the concept of one person one vote globally? You willing to give up that power or do you only advocate changes in power structure that benefits you and your ideology? My ideology is a belief in democracy. What’s yours? The United States is a democracy (albeit not a complete one as this thread reminds us). The People’s Republic of China is not a democracy. There’s no good reason why Americans should join in with Chinese in a democratic system when China isn’t practicing democracy. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-senate/834903/53 "2019-06-03T02:57:12Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > Why should the citizens of L.A. have more say about what happens in Bears Ears, fer instance, than the people who actually live in UT? Because we have a national government. They make decisions that effect the entire country, including both California and Utah. As for why the citizens of Los Angeles should have more influence than the citizens of Bears Ear, it’s because of democracy. If two million people vote one way and a thousand people vote another way, then the two million people are supposed to win. That’s how democracy is supposed to work. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-senate/834903/54 "2019-06-03T03:44:10Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > It was a compromise the larger states were free to reject. That they didn’t is no evidence of extortion. If the people want more power then vote to start partitioning some of the larger states. If the original colonies that were asked to join in the union in order to prevent them from reverting back to British rule had been grandfathered in with equal representation, leaving new states to be given representation based on their population, are you saying that Wyoming would have balked at becoming a state? > [@mikecurtis](#): > > And in the House we have the opposite problem. States like Ca (and NY and IL) can dictate what happens inside a state like UT. Why should the citizens of L.A. have more say about what happens in Bears Ears, fer instance, than the people who actually live in UT? If it wasn’t for equal representation in the Senate there would be **NO** interstate highways in HI. Why would I, as a citizen of Chicago ever vote to approve spending my taxes on bridges in the middle of nowhere MT? The citizens of LA should have a say over what happens in Bears Ears for the same reason that MT expects the people of Chicago to pay taxes towards building a bridge in the middle of nowhere. A bridge in nowhere MT is still an asset to the nation, it still can easily be made the case that it should be built and paid for. Instead, the case does not need to be made, as a senator with massively disproportionate power can make his few voters happy at the expense of millions of others. > [@](#): > > And while I realize that its not a perfect analogy; **octopus** ’ point is apt. China has 5x the population of USA. Should the Chinese get 5x the voting power in the UN? The UN has very little to no control over the working of sovereign nations, unlike the federal government’s power over the states. If the UN had the same power over countries as the federal govt has over states, China would certainly not join, and I don’t think that you would be happy that Lithuania has the same voice as the US. ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-senate/834903/55 "2019-06-03T04:11:59Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Because we have a national government. They make decisions that effect the entire country, including both California and Utah. > > As for why the citizens of Los Angeles should have more influence than the citizens of Bears Ear, it’s because of democracy. If two million people vote one way and a thousand people vote another way, then the two million people are supposed to win. That’s how democracy is supposed to work. That’s a thuggish view of our system, IMHO: just because you have the votes you can do anything you want, take anything you want from whomever you want. How is that any different than sticking a gun in someone’s face and and taking their wallet. And we have more than just a national govt. We have a graduated system of responsibility. The Federal govt has jurisdiction over certain thing within its domain. And the State govts have jurisdiction over things in it’s domain. and so on down to local govts and to the family unit and finally down to personal jurisdiction. No matter how many votes you have there are some things that no one can force me to do. Just as the Fed govt, no matter how many votes they have can’t force a state to do certain things. When it comes to things like natural resources, the “people” can decide that the country as a whole would be better off if areas like Bears Ears were preserved. But we have to remember that that land is in the state of UT. It’s their land. Under normal circumstances the people of UT would be the ones who decide how its used. So UT NEEDS to have a disproportionate say in the matter. Without the Senate, CA and the rest of the country could just take the land without considering, or even caring about the effect it has in UT. And the opposite would not be true. If the Fed govt decided to set aside land in CA for the benefit of all; CA would have a virtual power of veto (or close to it) over such legislature if it was simply majority rule. How is that democratic? when one group of people have powers that a different group of people do not? Democracy is so much more than “majority rules”. The concerns of the minority have to be consider appropriately. Otherwise, its just a form of fascism: the majority forcing the minority to bow to their rule. Don’t get me wrong. Times have changed and priorities are not the same as they were in 1787. Its not the most efficient system. The Senate, imho, does have too much power, and that power is often not used properly. But, I don’t think that’s the fault of apportionment. It has more to do with our “two party” system and that Senators (and Representatives for that matter) often are more loyal to their party than they are to their constituency. mc ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-senate/834903/56 "2019-06-03T04:21:18Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The United States is a democracy If you go by what it says in the name, the United States is a union of states. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-senate/834903/57 "2019-06-03T04:23:48Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > My ideology is a belief in democracy. What’s yours? > > The United States is a democracy (albeit not a complete one as this thread reminds us). The People’s Republic of China is not a democracy. There’s no good reason why Americans should join in with Chinese in a democratic system when China isn’t practicing democracy. Well I don’t believe in a pure democracy. Not at all. Furthermore, I believe contracts, especially those that allow for modifications should be taken seriously. Now, I think we could do with breaking up California if those who make up California want more senators. I also think we should significantly expand the house. But in a world where 1/2 the folks have a double digit IQ? I am not down for pure democracy. Anyways, none of these threads that are calling for structural change actually address the root problem which is a system that has is stable with two dominant parties. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-senate/834903/58 "2019-06-03T04:50:23Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > That’s a thuggish view of our system, IMHO: just because you have the votes you can do anything you want, take anything you want from whomever you want. How is that any different than sticking a gun in someone’s face and and taking their wallet. It’s different in pretty much every way. The equivalent of somebody sticking a gun in your face is a dictatorship backed by force. A government like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union or North Korea; these regimes ruled by force because they didn’t have popular support. That’s the reason democracy works better than other political system. Democratic rule means the government has to do things which are supported by a majority of the citizenship. Democracy isn’t perfect; it still allows a majority to mistreat a minority. But every other political system is worse because it allows a minority to mistreat the majority. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-senate/834903/59 "2019-06-03T04:52:46Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > If you go by what it says in the name, the United States is a union of states. I know what united means. It means you’re taking a bunch of things and joining them together into one thing. The thirteen separate states were united into one single country. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-senate/834903/60 "2019-06-03T04:53:21Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > That’s a thuggish view of our system, IMHO: just because you have the votes you can do anything you want, take anything you want from whomever you want. How is that any different than sticking a gun in someone’s face and and taking their wallet. And how is it any different that just because they have a disproportionate number of votes, they can have anything they want? > [@](#): > > And we have more than just a national govt. We have a graduated system of responsibility. The Federal govt has jurisdiction over certain thing within its domain. And the State govts have jurisdiction over things in it’s domain. and so on down to local govts and to the family unit and finally down to personal jurisdiction. No matter how many votes you have there are some things that no one can force me to do. Just as the Fed govt, no matter how many votes they have can’t force a state to do certain things. No one is disputing that. Just that it takes fewer votes to affect the jurisdistions that the fed has from the states with smaller populations than from the states with larger. If you are worried about the large states voting the fed to force the small states to do things, why do you not understand the concern the large states have of the small states voting to force the large states to do things? > [@](#): > > When it comes to things like natural resources, the “people” can decide that the country as a whole would be better off if areas like Bears Ears were preserved. But we have to remember that that land is in the state of UT. It’s their land. Under normal circumstances the people of UT would be the ones who decide how its used. So UT NEEDS to have a disproportionate say in the matter. BLM stuff is complicated. Utah didn’t want that land, they wanted the fed to use its resources to protect and develop it, and did so with the understanding that the fed would have jurisdiction. Now that Utah is in a different position, and sees profit to be had in exploiting the land, they want to change the arrangement. I don’t know that the people who paid taxes to support that land when it was unwanted shouldn’t have a say in the matter. > [@](#): > > Without the Senate, CA and the rest of the country could just take the land without considering, or even caring about the effect it has in UT. Take it? Take it where? > [@](#): > > And the opposite would not be true. If the Fed govt decided to set aside land in CA for the benefit of all; CA would have a virtual power of veto (or close to it) over such legislature if it was simply majority rule. How is that democratic? when one group of people have powers that a different group of people do not? But if that were a concern for Utah, then why should California not be worried that the coalition of small states that make up a tenth of their population does not decide to set land aside in California? > [@](#): > > Democracy is so much more than “majority rules”. The concerns of the minority have to be consider appropriately. Otherwise, its just a form of fascism: the majority forcing the minority to bow to their rule. Which is why there are protections for the minority. What this setup does though is not protect the minority from a majority rule, but rather subjugate the majority by a minority. > [@](#): > > Don’t get me wrong. Times have changed and priorities are not the same as they were in 1787. Its not the most efficient system. The Senate, imho, does have too much power, and that power is often not used properly. But, I don’t think that’s the fault of apportionment. It has more to do with our “two party” system and that Senators (and Representatives for that matter) often are more loyal to their party than they are to their constituency. > > mc Don’t be too concerned about a two party system, as the way things are going, we’ll have a one party system soon enough. > [@octopus](#): > > Well I don’t believe in a pure democracy. Not at all. Furthermore, I believe contracts, especially those that allow for modifications should be taken seriously. A pure democracy is a difficult proposition, but that has nothing to do with the disproportionate power of the senate. All people should be represented equally, their concerns and their desires considered. Balancing the senate so that it has less absurd disproportionate of representation is not a direct democracy, nor even a step towards it. > [@](#): > > Now, I think we could do with breaking up California if those who make up California want more senators. I also think we should significantly expand the house. How about the combining of the Dakotas and maybe creating Utado and Wyomisota? > [@](#): > > But in a world where 1/2 the folks have a double digit IQ? I am not down for pure democracy. That’s a funny line, but is bullshit for considering policy. 84% of people have greater than an 85 IQ, which is plenty for critical thinking and understanding how policies will affect their lives, if given adequate civic education. Implement policy and determining exact priorities and budgets and such can certainly be left to the “smart” ones, but you don’t have to be a genius to have an informed opinion on the direction our communities take. > [@](#): > > Anyways, none of these threads that are calling for structural change actually address the root problem which is a system that has is stable with two dominant parties. And the two party system is also an “unforeseen” consequence of our founding father’s decisions which would take nearly the same amount of work to change as making changes to the senate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-senate/834903.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-senate/834903.md?page=4)