Re-work the Senate?

**Morningfrost** · 07-20-13, 12:14 AM

Originally Posted by iravedic

The arguments made in the article intrigue me though. The states as formed were much different, and population levels were much more similar. What Morning has proposed is as near to a parliamentarian system as anything. The parliamentarian system works fairly well in the majority of the developed world - there are definitely limitations however.

The current make up of the Senate, especially when you look at Wyoming compared to a larger state just 'seems' really unbalanced. Add to that the current state of the Senate rules and you get wild results. The fact that more people voted for Romney in Brooklyn than in Wyoming was a startling fact. These folks are definitely getting more out of their representatives than the average US citizen. I have seen a bit of it moving from a very large state (Texas 25.6M) to a much smaller state (Oregon 3.8M). While in Texas I was fairly political - I was on the list to be tapped for a donation for every major candidate over the last 15 or so years. I met both Texas Senators on numerous occasions, and had quite a bit of 'access', not that it meant much, but I have had conversations with the Senators. Now that access was purely a function of me having the means and will to make a campaign contribution. The average Texan did not have the same access. I know that both Senators held regular community meetings and made great efforts to reach out to the community - but there are 26 million Texans, a staggering number to try and take the pulse of, add to that the sheer size of the state and the fact that there are approximately 10-12 significant population centers spread from corner to corner. It is a daunting task.

Now in Oregon - to date I have not made a single contribution to any state candidate (it's coming they just haven't found me yet). In the period of time I have been here (10 months) I have seen and talked to both of the Senators. Not quite the same level of access, but I meet and chatted at length with one at a Farmers Market and have met the other at an event at Pioneer Square. The Senators from Oregon can be found with some regularity at a variety of events around the state. I would venture though that the 'access' to the Senators is much better in the Willamette valley (where the vast majority of the state lives) than in the more rural areas of Oregon. But that's kinda the point - the Senators from Oregon are dealing both with a more manageable number of people in addition to a smaller geographic area.

I think access to elected officials is very important - not so much so the individual can get what he wants, but to ensure that the elected official has the opportunity to get a broader understanding of what the people he represents feel. I can guarantee you that the people of Wyoming are getting the best access in the Country - I don't begrudge them that, but it feels unfair to the states like Florida, Texas, California, and New York.

Something I actually just thought of in regards to the Senate, as well. Since part of a Senator's job is to promote his State in our Federal legislator, it might not be a bad idea to essentially have Senators run as part of a gubernatorial ticket in a State. Essentially, vote this Governor in, and these will be your Senators. As it currently stands, it's rather easy for a Governor and his Senators to be working at cross-purposes, and having them all run as part of the same ticket might actually ensure that they work together. A Governor's job is to do the best he can to run and improve the State. A Senator's job is to work to advance his State as part of the Federal Government. I'd say their jobs kind of go hand in hand....yet we elect individuals with WIDELY different goals, and that's just silly.

~Morningfrost

**Madmax (Grape)** · 07-20-13, 12:31 AM

I would really like it if every US citizen had equal representation in federal government. Senate needs to be reworked and the electoral college needs to go in order for this to happen.

Its very odd that my vote had more effect when I lived in NV than when I lived in CA.

**iravedic** · 07-20-13, 02:38 AM

Expanding the topic a bit -

One of the prime features of the Senate's rules which I believe has led to the piss poor level of the Senate actually working to get anything done is the silent filibuster.

Newsbound - The Curious Case of the Silent Filibuster

I think that if the Senators want to exercise this rule - they should have to stand there and talk. Much has been written about the proliferation of filibusters - the 'silent' nature of them has more to do with it than anything. Leave the filibuster in - but damn sure make it painful if you want to invoke it to stop legislation.

**Gumby** · 07-20-13, 03:23 AM

Getting rid of the Senate makes sense only if you no longer think of the states as sovereign. If that's the case, stop calling them states and start calling them provinces or something. They are called states because that's what they are supposed to be. So the guys that made up our bicameral legislative branch made one part based on population and one where all the states have an equal vote because all the states are supposed to be peers. This keeps states with larger populations from enacting laws that might take advantage of a state with a smaller population.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk

**triggerhappy2005** · 07-20-13, 07:22 AM

Why the US has this antiquiated 'States' sytem is a riddle. It made sense at the start of the union when the colonies fancied themselves as independent entities. After over 200 years of being supposedly united it's time to become a coherent country with uniform laws and practices everywhere. People in Wyoming shouldn't consider themselves any different than people in Californis, they're both Americans.

**Gumby** · 07-20-13, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Why the US has this antiquiated 'States' sytem is a riddle. It made sense at the start of the union when the colonies fancied themselves as independent entities. After over 200 years of being supposedly united it's time to become a coherent country with uniform laws and practices everywhere. People in Wyoming shouldn't consider themselves any different than people in Californis, they're both Americans.

I disagree. The system decentralizes things a bit while (supposedly) guaranteeing certain rights across the board. Decentralized government is good because people closer to an issue will usually handle it better than someone far away.

I rather like the way it's supposed to work with a federal government dealing with things that affect all the states like military, foreign relations and interstate commerce and the states dealing with internal issues. Please note that I said supposed to work because I think it's somewhat broken and the federal government is doing a lot of things that should be handled by the states.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

**-Lazarus-** · 07-20-13, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Gumby

I disagree. The system decentralizes things a bit while (supposedly) guaranteeing certain rights across the board. Decentralized government is good because people closer to an issue will usually handle it better than someone far away.

I rather like the way it's supposed to work with a federal government dealing with things that affect all the states like military, foreign relations and interstate commerce and the states dealing with internal issues. Please note that I said supposed to work because I think it's somewhat broken and the federal government is doing a lot of things that should be handled by the states.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

You hit the nail right on the head Gumby. Hard. Nice post.

**SmokenScion** · 07-20-13, 01:06 PM

I gather he meant that the senate balances out the congress. I learned that in elementary school. But doesnt that make it more imbalanced? At this point, years after its inception we've seen the affects this has had on amendments.