What if the U.S. Constitution were amended as follows . . .?

[BrainGlutton]

@AHunter3

I don’t think we should destroy the Senate. Better to keep Congress divided against itself, checking and balancing the House with the Senate and vice versa.

From where have the most egregious abuses of power come over the past two centuries? From the executive branch, not the legislative. Eliminating the “checking and balancing” you describe would strengthen the legislative branch as against the executive branch. In compensation for that, I propose a simultaneous reform encouraging a multiparty system to emerge within the one-house Congress, thus making sure it does nothing that is not supported by a broad majority of several ideological tendencies – and also making it much more difficult for Congress to avoid enacting policy that has a broad range of support among the people.

@AHunter3

The place to make those changes is at the other end of the pyramid: to make local governments more responsive to citizens, and county/town governments responsive to local governments, and state governments more responsive to county/town governments. I don’t know about you, but my city councilschmuck hasn’t asked my opinion on matters any more often than my US Senators. (And at least they make public noise about the issues in front of them and how they intend to vote and what bills they intend on introducing, so I have some idea as to what they’re up to).

Start local and take away their power to actually cast votes — make them propose and debate issues and put them up for citizen referendum, if necessary on a per-neighborhood basis. That’s power to the people.

So it is. I’ve toyed with the idea of organizing the whole country into New England-style “townships” with periodic mass meetings. (Cuba actually has something like this, believe it or not, and a very democratic system it would be, if the Communist Party did not absolutely control every stage of the process.) But that would be a different thread.

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

Eliminate the Senate, and we’d have another civil war on our hands.

I really, really doubt that. (See this recent thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=325676 The general consensus was that the idea of another civil war America, over any conceivable issue or set of issues, is preposterous. Even more preposterous than the idea of abolishing the Senate.)

[BrainGlutton]

@This Year's Model

Why break something that ain’t broken? I don’t see what we gain by throwing away a system that has worked pretty darn well for over 200 years.

See post #16.

[BrainGlutton]

@MGibson

What is it exactly you think we’ll acomplish by destrying the United States of America?

Marc

See post #22.

[BrainGlutton]

@Monty

There’s no need for the fourth branch to police the current three. The constitutional system we have now has checks and balances already. Essentially, each branch is overseen (checked/balanced) by the other two.

I know. My point is, the more error-correcting machinery you can build into the system, the better; and the bigger and more powerful government-as-such gets, the more error-correcting machinery you need.

@Monty

I don’t see how the Senate is undemocratic. It is the representation of the separate state governments to the national legislature. Although the method of selecting the state representation has changed, the senatorial function has not.

A senator represents his/her state-as-a-unit because that is his/her constituency, just like a district for a House member. But since when have the senators represented state governments in any sense? I don’t think they played that role even when they were elected by state legislatures.

@Monty

Abolishing the Electoral College is a tough call. Many people, such as I, support its continued existance. Many people decry it.

True, but you’re missing the point of this thread, which is to debate: "What if all these changes to our Constitution were implemented?" Not to (in direct terms) debate: “Are these changes necessary or desirable?”

@Monty

There is no need to hold a convention every 20 years to consider amending the Constitution. You are free right now to draft an amendment and have it considered.

Yes – to have it considered by state legislatures, 3/4 of which must agree. I’m envisioning a way for the people – as a national whole – to do an end-run around that process.

@Monty

There is certainly no need to stipulate a national referendum for amending it as there is currently an option to have state conventions consider amendments.

See above.

@Monty

The current state boundaries are as they are due to historical events, most notable event, of course, is that is the size of the state up;on its request for and then admission to the Union. Redrawing them willy nilly ignores the simple fact that the state was admitted as a unit, as a people if you will, to the Union.

So they were. What is your point?

[Frank]

@BrainGlutton

I really, really doubt that. (See this recent thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=325676 The general consensus was that the idea of another civil war America, over any conceivable issue or set of issues, is preposterous. …)

I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that that would still hold under your new system of government. After you have exploded the system that has held us together, there are likely to be unexpected and unanticipated changes as well. We can assume that, if you like, but I think it’s a bad assumption.

[BrainGlutton]

@MGibson

First, I think we have to address whether or not the system is unfair.

Marc

That’s been covered in this old thread – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=181890. For purposes of the present thread, let’s simply assume broad agreement already has been reached that the system is unfair and that we’ve decided to abolish the Senate. What then?

[BrainGlutton]

@Bryan Ekers

Sounds like you’re trying to copy us Canadians.

Not quite. You don’t have proportional representation. (Yet.) And the Tribunate as I’ve envisioned it (very differently from the College of Tribunes in the ancient Roman Republic) is something with which no government anywhere has experimented, as yet, unless you count the “ombudsman” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman).

[Captain_Amazing]

@BrainGlutton

From where have the most egregious abuses of power come over the past two centuries? From the executive branch, not the legislative.

Really? Like the Alien and Sedition Acts? The Kansas-Nebraska Act? The McCarthy hearings?

[Ravenman]

@BrainGlutton

For purposes of the present thread, let’s simply assume broad agreement already has been reached that the system is unfair and that we’ve decided to abolish the Senate. What then?

Ah. Let’s just debate how fantstic the OP’s suggestions are. Are they super-great, really great, or just somewhat great?

Discuss.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Well, if you do away with the Senate, I hope you plan on increasing the terms of office of representatives from two to four years. With the current term at two years, the House is kept in a perpetual state of desperation, willing to glom onto any nutty short-term fix, if it’ll help them every other November. The longer-serving Senators can afford to take a longer view and put the brakes on, if need be.

Canada has a largely ceremonial Senate, but our Parliament (i.e. House) can maintain (under most circumstances) a government of up to five years.

I’m not certain how ditching one system of control (the proven, established Senate) for another (the unproven, theoretical Tribunate) is an improvement.

[Odesio]

@BrainGlutton

That’s been covered in this old thread – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=181890. For purposes of the present thread, let’s simply assume broad agreement already has been reached that the system is unfair and that we’ve decided to abolish the Senate. What then?

Fair enough, let’s see.

>>1. Abolish the Senate; devolve all its powers and functions on the House of Representatives.<<

The result will be a lack of checks and balances within the legislature. This will lead to more laws being passed based on whatever the topic de jour is and the House won’t have any incentive to think about the long term affects. The smaller states grow resentful because they have almost no voice in national politics.

>>2. Elect the House of Representatives by the multimember district form of proportional representation.<<

Depending on how the districts are drawn this might not make much of a difference. I suppose a few socialist or religious nuts might find a seat in the house but by and large the two dominant parties will remain in control.

>>3. Abolish the Electoral College.<<

Less populous states grow even more pissed off because in addition to having no affect on national politics they are unable to have a say in who is elected.

>>4. Create a separately elected fourth branch of government, a “Tribunate,” to police the other three, and also to take over all “metagovernmental” functions such as running the elections;<<

This 4th branch will be used as a club by the dominant parties to beat over the heads of their enemies.

>>5. Empower Congress to redraw state boundaries, abolish states, merge/consolidate states, create new states, without consent of the state governments affected.<<

Smaller states grow even more pissed off as the larger more powerful states take their land for whatever use. You think eminent domain is bad, wait until California wants a piece of Oregon or Nevada. Why bother having states in the first place?

>>6. Provide for amendment of the Constitution by national referendum, if Congress votes by 2/3 to submit an amendment to referendum<<

Again, the less populous states find that they have no voice in national politics.

>>7. Provide for a new Constitutional Convention every 20 years, its delegates to be elected by the same method as the House of Representatives (multi-member district PR), but sitting members of Congress not eligible to run.<<

What a waste of time. Unless everyone decides to propose a new Constitution we shouldn’t waste our time doing it every 20 years.

>>Suppose we did all this – what would be the result? What kind of American polity would emerge?<<

A nation where the majority preys on the minority as a matter of policy. I imagine it would only be a matter of time before violence ensued.

Marc

[Larry_Borgia]

MHOs, and I haven’t read all of the linked thread.

1.) Agin it. The Senate is a more deliberative body and serves as a check on the trolls and loons in the house. I’m not sure why this is, but it seems to be the case.

2.) Not sure what this would accomplish. Most third parties have problems because they seem to be composed of extremist loons. It’s not hard to see how a third party could do a better job of appealing to Americans without a need to tinker with the electoral system.

3.) Strongly in favor of getting rid of the electoral college. Prefer to keep the one-person one-vote system, which the electoral college subverts. (Why do the votes of people from Ohio or Florida count more than the votes of people from Texas or Massachusetts?)

4.) Not entirely sure what this tribunate would do. I think it would be just as open to accusations of partisanship as any of the extant branches of government.

5.) Strongly against it. People have a sense of belonging to their states and attachment to state law and culture. Having the Feds redraw borders arbitrarily would lead to bad blood at the least.

6.) Strongly against it. The constitution should be as difficult to amend as possible, without being impossible to amend.

7.) Violently against it. I’m not willing to give up the system created by Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison for a system drawn up by George Bush, John Kerry, Tom DeLay, and Nancy Pelosi.

[Spatial_Rift_47]

For the most part, I agree with your inferences, MGibson, but I don’t think it would be quite as bad as you make it out to be. Specifically:

@MGibson

>>5. Empower Congress to redraw state boundaries, abolish states, merge/consolidate states, create new states, without consent of the state governments affected.<<

Smaller states grow even more pissed off as the larger more powerful states take their land for whatever use. You think eminent domain is bad, wait until California wants a piece of Oregon or Nevada. Why bother having states in the first place?

It’s Congress that’s redrawing state boundaries, not the states themselves. California all by itself wouldn’t be able to enact boundary changes to add more land, other states would have to agree. With the Senate gone, the more populous states might well form some agreement and eat up the smaller ones. So all you have to do is redraw the state lines right off the bat so that all have approximately equal populations, and thus equal representations. Doing so not only solves this problem, but removes any objections of the less populous states – because there wouldn’t be any less populous states.

[Lemur866]

But then you don’t have states, you have administrative districts wholly subsidiary to the Federal Government. Why not just abolish the states in the first place and run everything from Washington DC?

The big thrust of the OP’s suggestions is to limit or curb state power in favor of federal power. Why bother limiting state power when you could just abolish it?

[Odesio]

@Spatial Rift 47

It’s Congress that’s redrawing state boundaries, not the states themselves. California all by itself wouldn’t be able to enact boundary changes to add more land, other states would have to agree. With the Senate gone, the more populous states might well form some agreement and eat up the smaller ones.

Granted, California might not be able to do it alone but after they team up with Texas or New York who knows? What are the checks and balances that protect the people in smaller states?

So all you have to do is redraw the state lines right off the bat so that all have approximately equal populations, and thus equal representations. Doing so not only solves this problem, but removes any objections of the less populous states – because there wouldn’t be any less populous states.

Who will redraw the states? The larger states will redraw them to their advantages.

Marc

[BrainGlutton]

@Lemur866

But then you don’t have states, you have administrative districts wholly subsidiary to the Federal Government. Why not just abolish the states in the first place and run everything from Washington DC?

The big thrust of the OP’s suggestions is to limit or curb state power in favor of federal power. Why bother limiting state power when you could just abolish it?

Same reason the states do not abolish county, city and town governments and run everything from the state capital – even though they could.

[Odesio]

The whole idea behind state and local governments is that different areas of the United States have different needs. For example the school districts of southern Texas and northern Wisconsin can face radically different needs. Even within a state those districts seperated by only a few miles may face radically different needs. The idea that needs can vary from place to place holds true with everything from zoning laws to traffic problems.

How would things improve if we centralized everything in a state capitol or Washington D.C.? I think it’d just be inefficent and would give everyone headaches as one fit solutions are handed down to everything regardless of their situations. No one left behind, anyone?

Marc

[clairobscur]

@Ravenman

A Constitutional convention every 20 years sounds like a disaster. This country has been well served by having a stable form of government, in which pretty much everyone knows and plays by the rules. I can’t imagine the chaos if, in addition to changing governments every four to eight years, we changed constitutions every 20…

Actually, though maybe it wouldn’t be very practical, it makes a lot of sense. When you think about it, it’s mid-boggling that in a democracy, nobody alive ever had any say in the way the government is organized and about the supreme law of the land.

If it aren’t broken, then people will vote in favor of reconducting the constitution without changes. If they don’t vote this way, it means that something is actually broken. If the people doesn’t want to be governed in a certain way, I think the opinion of guys who died 200 years ago is irrelevant.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@clairobscur

Actually, though maybe it wouldn’t be very practical, it makes a lot of sense. When you think about it, it’s mid-boggling that in a democracy, nobody alive ever had any say in the way the government is organized and about the supreme law of the land.

I’m afraid I have to call bullshit on this, unless you can prove everyone who supported the 27th Amendment (ratified in 1992, though it had been kicked around since the earliest days of the republic) has kicked the bucket.

As for the general structure of the federal government, it persists because it works reasonably well and there’s no evidence that variants would work significantly better. You can look at other democracies where the executive is largely ceremonial, or democracies where the executive has even greater legal powers, and none of them are utopias. The OP’s list of alterations would simply trade one set of problems for another.