Should we abolish the Senate?

[HurricaneDitka]

@Akaj

Here’s a state merger/break-up scenario I proposed in a thread last year, complete with silly names:

ND and SD = Dakota
ID and MT = Montanaho
VT and NH = Vampshire
CA = N. California & S. California
TX = E. Texas & W. Texas
NY = The City & Upstate

This would not universally benefit Democrats, although that would probably be the immediate net effect.

I’d add to that:

• Maryland retrocession for DC
• Do something with Rhode Island (I vote for merging with CT)

[Bone]

@septimus

So. Due purely to historical accident more than 200 years in the past, the individual voters in Rhode Island should have FAR more power in U.S. national politics than the voters of San Francisco. Because ____________. Got it.

Cancel my subscription, if I haven’t already. I left the because empty so as not to put words in your mouth. Has there been an intelligible ‘Because’ in the thread?

It’s not “should”. It just is. The reason is because that is the agreement that was entered, and it didn’t have a sunset clause. It does however, contain the ability to modify if the people involved in the agreement want to.

[k9bfriender]

@octopus

That’s San Francisco’s problem. Not Rhode Island’s. At least with regards to the national level. At the state level, California has a state government. How when it has no sovereignty is still a puzzle.

Not really. Anyone that approaches this in good faith is not confused.

But it exists and San Francisco and those who have differences with San Francisco can deal with it in Sacramento.

Within San Francisco you have different neighborhoods with different priorities. They take issues up with city government. They don’t go to Washington D.C. because they want a new stop sign or more needle and poop sweepers. They handle it or not locally. With local government and local powers.

The points was to refute the argument that this is to make sure that the “little people” get represented.

Since you acknowledge that it has nothing to do with making sure that rural interests are assured, we can move on.

What you attempt to trivialize by labeling it ‘banalities’ is, in reality, the way the political and social world works. History and past agreements matter. If boundaries of territory aren’t respected because of treaty and law then that only leaves the rule of force.

Treaty and law are upheld by the use of force.

@Corry_El

That’s very far from compelling logic, even for the internet. By the same logic the United States does not communicate, I’ve never heard it say a word either. So why should it have any influence on overall world policies out of proportion to its population as a % of the world total? Because it’s a sovereign entity, which by its own political process decides what limited portions of that sovereignty it’s willing to surrender to ‘higher’ international bodies (there are some cases under various treaty agreements).

That’s actually because we have a military that can go around and kick people’s ass. We do not give up any sovereignty to anyone at all. We don’t have to.

Tell that to a country like Iraq, how much sovereignty do they have? How much sovereignty did it decide to surrender by its own political process

If your argument is that the states should arm themselves and war amongst each other, then it is relevant, but a bad, very bad idea.

The states as sovereign entities agreed to surrender a good deal of their power to the new federal govt to form the Union, but not all of them, nor did they agree to no longer be sovereign entities. And practically speaking you have to live within that agreement, or get around it under it’s own terms but without word games. That’s the practical reality which isn’t even really affected necessarily by whether your logic is strong, or as lame at it just was.

The word game that is being played is to say that states have sovereignty under one definition, and then claim they have the powers of a sovereign under another.

The further ridiculousness of this conversation being, that if Democrats (the ‘reformers’ seeking their ‘rightful’ political domination at all cost) got the kind of majorities they need to pass constitutional amendments downgrading the Senate’s power (which is the marginally realistic path rather than 100% state govt agreement to have their Senate representation reduced, which would literally never happen)…it would depend on Democratic politicians first attaining Senate and state legislature 2/3’s and 3/4’s majorities then downgrading their own personal power, which would also not happen when push came to shove.

Why would it have to be democrats? Couldn’t that be a representative of any group who wishes to live up to the ideals of democracy? Why are you insistent that only democrats are willing to fight for the right of self governance? You may be right, but I had a bit more faith in the republican party than that.

@octopus

Yes there has. History matters. That’s why France has a permanent spot on the UN Security Council and every other country with 4 exceptions does not.

When the UN has any say in how France is run, then your analogy would be relevant.

History matters. That’s why Canada has all that land and so little people. How’s that fair? Let’s split the world’s land up proportionately.

Ummm, that is irrelevant to proportional representation. Once again, it seems you have to be reminded that land is not people.

Look up the EU. If it doesn’t collapse at some point they will want more central power. You think they will get buy in from the smaller countries if no concessions are made? You think the smaller countries are going to be thrilled once the deal is made Germany reneges?

Yeah, I think that smaller countries would like to be a part of the economic system of the EU, as well as be protected by a coalition of forces. Lithuania wouldn’t hold out to have the same vote as Germany, and Germany wouldn’t allow them to have a vote equal to themselves.

If 240 years after lithuania joins, the deal needs to be renegotiated, then the people who made the deal will be dead, not thrilled.

[k9bfriender]

@Bone

It’s not “should”. It just is. The reason is because that is the agreement that was entered, and it didn’t have a sunset clause. It does however, contain the ability to modify if the people involved in the agreement want to.

Great, thank you for agreeing.

This is us building the case for changing that agreement. Making a counter case to that proposal is fine, but just repeating over and over again that that was the agreement made well over 200 years ago is rather pointless, and is really not relevant to the argument.

[Bone]

@k9bfriender

Great, thank you for agreeing.

This is us building the case for changing that agreement. Making a counter case to that proposal is fine, but just repeating over and over again that that was the agreement made well over 200 years ago is rather pointless, and is really not relevant to the argument.

Thank you for agreeing that I’m right. Does this rhetorical tactic work often?

That the agreement is still controlling means it is relevant. I don’t even think there is common understanding of the nature of the agreement between states - without that there’s not anything close to building a case. But hey, if you want to change the agreement, the amendment process is open and takes all comers. A constitutional convention is also available. I think the Democratic Party should make this a key part of their platform - elect Democrats and abolish the constitution!

[HurricaneDitka]

@k9bfriender

Great, thank you for agreeing.

This is us building the case for changing that agreement. Making a counter case to that proposal is fine, but just repeating over and over again that that was the agreement made well over 200 years ago is rather pointless, and is really not relevant to the argument.

You’re not going to win a lot of support with just “I think this other way is more fair”. What could you offer the Wyomings and North Dakotas of the country to incentivize them to go along with your “case for changing that agreement”? Have you given that any consideration?

[Red_Wiggler]

@Bone

Thank you for agreeing that I’m right. Does this rhetorical tactic work often?

That the agreement is still controlling means it is relevant. I don’t even think there is common understanding of the nature of the agreement between states - without that there’s not anything close to building a case. But hey, if you want to change the agreement, the amendment process is open and takes all comers. A constitutional convention is also available. I think the Democratic Party should make this a key part of their platform - elect Democrats and abolish the constitution!

Oops.

[septimus]

@Akaj

…

CA = N. California & S. California

…

It’s more fun to divide California into FOUR states. The exciting thing there is to gerrymander the districts just so to get all 4 states D-Blue! Hey! They’re using live ammo; we’d better too.

[Red_Wiggler]

Bone’s quote in my post above should have been deleted. My “oops” was not directed at anything he wrote. Apologies.

[bump]

@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?

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

That’s also why we have State legislatures; for the most part, the goings-on in Bears Ears, UT are regulated by the Utah legislature, and only the parts which are Federal in scope are in jeopardy of being run over roughshod by the good representatives of Los Angeles.

And as far as the House versus the Senate is concerned, we all seem to be forgetting that neither of them can do a whole lot independent of the other when it comes to forging actual legislation.

Ultimately though, the Senate represents the States’ interests, and this made a whole lot more sense prior to the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, when the legislatures chose the Senators, instead of a popular vote.

[mikecurtis]

@k9bfriender

. . . This is us building the case for changing that agreement. Making a counter case to that proposal is fine, but just repeating over and over again that that was the agreement made well over 200 years ago is rather pointless, and is really not relevant to the argument.

But, so far, the only reason you and others are giving to change that agreement is that the Senate doesn’t represent the people of the US fairly. And myself, and others, keep pointing out that it was never designed to represent the people. That’s the House’s job.

You keep saying that the Senate gives unfair advantage to certain members, and is therefore broken and should be fixed or changed. And we keep saying that it’s only an unfair advantage from one perspective and it’s not the perspective that the Senate was devised to respond to. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

And besides, it’s the responsibility of those who advocate for change to make the case that that change is needed. The rest of us can sit back and say "it is what it is, and it has been since the beginning, and has worked (for the most part)!

mc

[Akaj]

@HurricaneDitka

I’d add to that:

• Maryland retrocession for DC
• Do something with Rhode Island (I vote for merging with CT)

@septimus

It’s more fun to divide California into FOUR states. The exciting thing there is to gerrymander the districts just so to get all 4 states D-Blue! Hey! They’re using live ammo; we’d better too.

So DC becomes part of Maryland? Seems reasonable.

Rhode Island + Connecticut = Rhodecticut (obviously)

California/4 =
[ul]
[li]Sequoialand (the northern half minus the Bay Area)[/li][li]Siliconia (the Bay Area)[/li][li]Fresnomia (the southern half minus the LA area)[/li][li]Dodger Nation[/li][/ul]

[septimus]

@septimus

It’s more fun to divide California into FOUR states. The exciting thing there is to gerrymander the districts just so to get all 4 states D-Blue! Hey! They’re using live ammo; we’d better too.

Perhaps a break-up into seven states would be best. Each resultant state would be about as big as a regular state.

With blatant gerrymandering we should be able to get all 14 Senators Blue. There’d be a West Northifornia, East Northifornia, Central Northifornia, South Northifornia, North Southifornia, Central Southifornia, and South Southifornia.

Blatant gerrymandering? Sure. At this point I just want to thumb my nose at the u**** in exasperation.

[octopus]

@septimus

Perhaps a break-up into seven states would be best. Each resultant state would be about as big as a regular state.

With blatant gerrymandering we should be able to get all 14 Senators Blue. There’d be a West Northifornia, East Northifornia, Central Northifornia, South Northifornia, North Southifornia, Central Southifornia, and South Southifornia.

Blatant gerrymandering? Sure. At this point I just want to thumb my nose at the u**** in exasperation.

That’d be interesting. What would also be funny is seeing the evolution of the so-called blues as the path to power shifted decisively in that direction. The name might be the same but would the people attracted to the party be the same?

[DSYoungEsq]

@Little_Nemo

Wikipedia might be a good place to start. But it’s hardly the final word on any subject.

I suggest Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 by Pauline Maier. There’s also The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789 by Joseph Ellis, Slavery’s Constitution: From Revolution to Ratification by David Waldstreicher, and Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution by Richard Beeman. There’s also Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow (I’ll admit when I read this one, I totally missed its potential as a musical) and The Three Lives of James Madison: Genius, Partisan, President by Noah Feldman (cheating a bit here; I’m still in the middle of reading this one). And of course, there’s the Federalist Papers and various Anti-Federalist works; a lot of them have been collected into a two-volume work titled The Debate on the Constitution.

There’s some other works on the subject that look interesting: An Anti-Federalist Constitution: The Development of Dissent in the Ratification Debates by Michael Faber, Federalists and Antifederalists: The Debate Over the Ratification of the Constitution by John Kaminski and Richard Leffler, and The Writing and Ratification of the U.S. Constitution: Practical Virtue in Action by John Vile. But I haven’t read these yet.

Please explain in which of these you find a statement that the ratification of the Constitution by the states occured by POPULAR VOTE, as you asserted in the post I objected to?

[DSYoungEsq]

@k9bfriender

This is us building the case for changing that agreement. Making a counter case to that proposal is fine, but just repeating over and over again that that was the agreement made well over 200 years ago is rather pointless, and is really not relevant to the argument.

This gets to the heart of the problem.

Your “side” asserts, “We need to change the Senate.”

“Why”, the other side asks?

“Because it means some people have more political power than others simply because of geography.”

“But that’s intentional. Why should it be changed?”

“Because we don’t think that’s right.”

Well, ok, we get that you and others think that there is something inherently “wrong” about the current situation. But that, in and of itself, isn’t a reason for change. Establish how the current system creates poor results. How would abolishing the Senate produce a better set of laws for our country? Provide some analysis of situations in the relatively recent past where Congress would have produced a better result had it not had a Senate, but rather something else? In doing so, don’t just offer up situations where something would have passed that you’re particularly in love with politically, because keep in mind that the House can be controlled by a majority of the OTHER party, and absent a Senate, can pass legislation that you’d be politically opposed to vehemently.

All I see is a continued harping on the idea that somehow it’s “wrong” to have a system like the Senate because not every person’s “vote” is “equal”. I don’t personally think that’s a compelling argument for change, for reasons that have been posted previously. And those reasons aren’t just, “that’s the way it’s been done”. They include perfectly good arguments about how interests of people in geographically diverse areas are protected by the current system, arguments that your side simply don’t see as more important. Again, I get that, but you are the people agitating for change. Were the roles reversed, the burden would be on the other foot. It’s not.

[Bone]

@DSYoungEsq

All I see is a continued harping on the idea that somehow it’s “wrong” to have a system like the Senate because not every person’s “vote” is “equal”. I don’t personally think that’s a compelling argument for change, for reasons that have been posted previously. And those reasons aren’t just, “that’s the way it’s been done”. They include perfectly good arguments about how interests of people in geographically diverse areas are protected by the current system, arguments that your side simply don’t see as more important. Again, I get that, but you are the people agitating for change. Were the roles reversed, the burden would be on the other foot. It’s not.

I see it as this idea that some people don’t agree with how the country should be organized. That their way is obviously better and any right thinking person would just know this to be true. It’s like they joined the libertarian party.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Bone

I see it as this idea that some people don’t agree with how the country should be organized. That their way is obviously better and any right thinking person would just know this to be true. It’s like they joined the libertarian party.

Aren’t they left-thinking people? </rimshot>

[septimus]

@octopus

That’d be interesting. What would also be funny is seeing the evolution of the so-called blues as the path to power shifted decisively in that direction. The name might be the same but would the people attracted to the party be the same?

Sure. This would be a feature, not a bug. The Democratic Party has historically been the Big Tent Party which builds consensus out of diverse opinions. Getting a broader group of people to join the Tent would be good.

[Urbanredneck]

Well the same thing for individual states. If Kansas is typical we have 105 counties. Now each county has its own representative in the state house of representatives which has 125 members so some counties have 2. There are 40 senators in the state senate. Now where I am at, Johnson county, supplies roughly 1/3rd of the states income. Yet we dont get that much back from the state for things like schools and roads. The state actually limits how much we can raise taxes. The state also sets spending on a formula of per student so some very poor district in western Kansas gets about the same as a wealthy district here.

I suspect other states are similar.