Re-work the Senate?

**iravedic** · 07-19-13, 05:12 PM

I have tired of the endless round-about on TM and GZ - time to change the subject.

I've been reading and looking at issues related to the question raised by a number of liberals - should we be moving toward a more direct democracy? The issue is primarily cast as an assault on the Senate, and the fact that regardless of population each state gets 2 Senators. It has resurfaced in the main-stream news as of late with Dick Chenney's daughter announcing her bid for one of the Senate seats in Wyoming. The argument is 'why should a state with 570,000 people get 2 senators?' The origins of the Senate are clear - the Constitution provides that each state will get 2, and the history of statehood has been intertwined with politics from the outset.

Look at this article and let's see if we can have a rationale discussion of the topic - if anyone is so inclined. Frankly, I see both sides of the issue and haven't made up my mind yet.

Wyoming Senate 2014: Two Senators are Too Much | New Republic

**iravedic** · 07-19-13, 05:16 PM

Here is another article that lays out the issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...0#/#compromise

**AetheLove** · 07-19-13, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by iravedic

Look at this article and let's see if we can have a rationale discussion of the topic - if anyone is so inclined. Frankly, I see both sides of the issue and haven't made up my mind yet.

This is good stuff.

I think I can be part of a rational discussion, but more than both sides I see about 100 (or 50) sides so my rationalism might be tempered by some schizophrenic digressions.

I think I understand the rationale for the two cameras (one by population and one by state). It seems like it was a good choice in 1789.

Both enfranchisement and federal power have grown. The argument for representation by state is weaker. But I don't think there is any practical way to change the composition of the Senate. It's Constitutional, and would require an amendment to change - an amendment ratified by 3/4ths of the states (that's from memory, please assault my intelligence if I'm wrong).

Perhaps it's possible to reduce the power of the Senate, but I'm not sure how.

Cheers,

AetheLove

**DJ Ms. White** · 07-19-13, 06:35 PM

If you need any help coping with the schizophrenia, you know who to call.

**Gumby** · 07-19-13, 06:58 PM

As each state has an equal vote for amendments and this would benefit the large population states and there are more small population states, this won't happen. And it should not happen either. This is what keeps the balance.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk

**SmokenScion** · 07-19-13, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by Gumby

As each state has an equal vote for amendments and this would benefit the large population states and there are more small population states, this won't happen. And it should not happen either. This is what keeps the balance.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk

What balance? balance of laws passed that are preferential to large Population states Or huh?
No Troll, I just don't understand what you mean by balance, please elaborate.

**deathgodusmc** · 07-19-13, 07:08 PM

The balance is reps per person.

**Morningfrost** · 07-19-13, 07:21 PM

Personally, when it comes to problems in our Legislative branch structure, I'm far more worried about the House than I am the Senate. I actually like the fact that the Senate and Congress balance each other, in that one group makes every state equal, while the other gives a larger voice to states with more people. The reason the Senate was established, and the reason I think it will continue, is that it brings the states to equal footing. Ae's point that the need for representation based upon state has lessened is certainly true, but there are still cases where such representation is necessary.

What I would like to see done, is to keep the Senate the way it is....though I would not mind putting in some type of term limits so the same person cannot be a representative for 30-40+ years, because you run the risk of becoming stagnant at that point....but instead I would like to completely revamp the way Congress is chosen and set up. Abolish the Congress representation by state, abolish the extremely political congressional districts that are constantly revised in order to give one party or another an advantage, and instead replace it with something based more upon proportional representation.

In my scenario, the number of Congressmen would be decided based upon the number of people who actually vote (say, for every 100k people who vote, there is 1 congressional seat). Instead of voting for individual congressmen, one would vote for a party, and whatever percentage of the national vote that party received, that is the percentage of congressional seats that party would have to award to its members. One of the major benefits I see to this type of a system, is that it effectively eliminates the two-party system. All of a sudden Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, etc., all would have a party of their own, and people could vote based upon their actual belief rather than just voting for the lesser of two evils.

I realize there are flaws in that proposed system, the largest of which is that it'll never fucking happen lol. I'm just tired of everything being Democrats vs. Republicans, Conservatives vs. Liberals. Right now people don't vote for their beliefs so much as they vote against shit they don't agree with. There are people all over that vote for one party because they think the other is batshit crazy. If I don't think Republicans and Democrats are doing what I want, I'd want to be able to cast my vote for a party I think will actually accomplish some of what I want accomplished. Even if I'm not directly choosing who I want representing me, I see that as a positive because the majority of people who vote are not informed voters when it comes to individual candidates. This type of a system means that's not really a problem.

~Morningfrost

**Morningfrost** · 07-19-13, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

What balance? balance of laws passed that are preferential to large Population states Or huh?
No Troll, I just don't understand what you mean by balance, please elaborate.

Having equal representation in the senate prevents states with large populations from essentially drowning out the voice of smaller states.

~Morningfrost

**iravedic** · 07-19-13, 11:14 PM

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.