Should the Senate be abolished?

[Franzl]

Just as you're practically voting for who will become Speaker of the House.

Who is not nearly as powerful as the Prime Minister.

Well that's a difference in forms of government, not the voting system.

Exactly.  But the difference in the form of government affects how people vote.

True.

[Frodo]

No, or at least not anytime soon.  With the House dominated by rabid Republicans, count yourself fortunate we have a Senate to offset it....   

[greenforest32]

Yes, bicameralism undermines equal representation of the people.

I don't see what kind of concerns or priorities are out there that deserve such disproportionate influence that they warrant giving sub-national governments the same power as the people in a legislature by giving said governments their own chamber (weighted by population or not). Democratic majority rule isn't something that should only be applied abstractly to votes, it should be something reflected in the underlying power structure of the legislature.

Of course I'm talking in a vacuum here where the unicameral House has neutrally drawn districts and isn't elected by a garbage system like FPTP. As for the incumbent Senators, who cares? They can just retire or try to get into the House.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There is some sense in representing subnational entities in the Parliament of a Federal country like the US, but the current system, where every State has 2 Senators, is ridiculously excessive. I'd say reforming it to include some degree of proportionality between States is necessary (though it will of course never happen).

[Simfan34]

Bicameralism is only really useful in a federal state, so no. I might change it to be somewhat more  proportional (75 more seats distributed proportionally?) but I certainly wouldn't get rid of it.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yes, bicameralism undermines equal representation of the people.

I agree; and that is why so many people here support it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In light of article 5, you would need all 50 states to go along with a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Senate, which makes it incredibly unlikely.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

That's why I think we're more likely to see the Senate have its powers reduced than abolished.  It was in many ways our version of the House of Lords, so giving it no more power than the Lords have in Parliament would seem appropriate.

[politicallefty]

Maybe. I think the number of veto points in passing legislation needs to be reduced from three (President, House, Senate) to two. Some checks and balances may good, but I think it's excessive as the current system stands. Unless we were to adopt a parliamentary system, I would support abolishing the Senate.

As for the Article V claim, could it not be argued that the abolition of the Senate is not depriving equal representation (as all states would be equal at zero representation)? Even if that weren't the case, that clause from Article V could simply be repealed through the normal amendment process.

[emailking]

As for the Article V claim, could it not be argued that the abolition of the Senate is not depriving equal representation (as all states would be equal at zero representation)? Even if that weren't the case, that clause from Article V could simply be repealed through the normal amendment process.

That might work as a "mathematical proof" argument. But you can similarly argue that technically a state has been deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate if it no longer has any suffrage. (Does "zero" exist or not? It's a philosophical question.)

What I'm saying is that I think the common sense interpretation is that the states would have to agree to get rid of the Senate, and therefore such an argument would not be put forward by 2/3 of congress and 38 states (or probably any) that wanted to abolish the Senate.

[politicallefty]

If a constitutional amendment were actually passed to abolish the Senate, it seems highly unlikely that there would be a challenge against it. It could very well be nonjusticiable as a political question. I could not see any instance where the Supreme Court would overrule a constitutional amendment, short of an outright defiance of that clause (such as a more proportional Senate without all 50 states consenting). Even in that case, I could see a ruling as implicitly overturning that clause by said amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits removal of what I would call the "Equal Senate Clause" (as I do not believe it has a current name).

[emailking]

I could not see any instance where the Supreme Court would overrule a constitutional amendment, short of an outright defiance of that clause

We disagree apparently, but I see it as an outright defiance. 

[politicallefty]

I could not see any instance where the Supreme Court would overrule a constitutional amendment, short of an outright defiance of that clause

We disagree apparently, but I see it as an outright defiance.

Even if we disagree, that clause does not appear to be immune from the normal amendment process. If there were enough votes in Congress and among the states to abolish the Senate, I could not foresee anything getting in the way of that. I really doubt any SCOTUS would ever rule on the text of a constitutional amendment on account of being a nonjusticiable political question. If we don't agree on either of those points, it would probably be better to agree to disagree.

[Foucaulf]

I guess I'll address five arguments against abolishing the Senate:

But the guys not on my side will one day control the house!
First, an alternate electoral system, like proportional representation, can mediate the power of one ideological faction over all matters relating to governance. Second, the same kind of tribal thinking is how one argues gerrymandering continues to be necessary because those on the opposing side continue to abuse it. Third, political extremism is more than a function of a state's democratic structure in the first place.

Even then, those in the majority have too much power!
Again, one solution is to use a different electoral system. But - with Congress inactive on immigration reform, energy legislation, appropriations, revenue, and having mostly ceded its powers on foreign policy - is a more consolidated legislature really what Americans worry about? Do not forget that the Executive still has a legislative power in the form of its veto; a less divided legislature may actually serve as a greater counterweight to the Presidency.

The Senate's collegiate nature produces better legislation!
When lobbyists and bureaucrats work out the details anyway, it takes some suspension of disbelief to assign responsibility for laws onto the legislators. In fact, as we have seen, the Senate's byzantine rules structure makes it too difficult to pass legislation in the first place; its relevance has been maintained in the past Congress by being a voice of opposition.

The Senate has important roles delegated by the Constitution, like examining Supreme Court nominees!
It is up for debate whether those duties cannot be acted upon by a House committee, and whether such a decision avoids the pompous grandstanding so often seen in Senators. There will always be members of the House who represent heavily partisan districts and can focus efforts to federal affairs, so continuity is not a huge issue either.

The Senate is an emblem of America's Federal government!
But the 17th Amendment essentially stripped away a state legislature's right to appoint their Senators. It is hard to see how today's Senators represent their states qua legal entity. What they do instead is rack up pork for their state, the elimination of which everyone supports but hesitates when applied first to their state. How else can this equilibrium be broken unless institutional changes occur?

I do have a fondness for bicameralism, but the upper house has to be established as one of revision, instead of this elitism that characterizes the Senate's existence.

[emailking]

I could not see any instance where the Supreme Court would overrule a constitutional amendment, short of an outright defiance of that clause

We disagree apparently, but I see it as an outright defiance.

Even if we disagree, that clause does not appear to be immune from the normal amendment process.

Now come on. Did they really need to put in that you can't modify the statement that list what you can't modify? Kurt Gödel famous (famous logician) noticed that flaw when he was studying to be a citizen, and his friend Einstein pleaded with him not to make an issue of it at the test. This one I don't think is even questionable. Yes you are correct in the "mathematical proof" sense but not in terms of common sense.

[Mr.Phips]

Absolutely not unless we had nonpartisan redistricting in every state.  Allowing one party to control all of Congress and sometimes even the whole government for a whole decade based on having the good luck of winning big in one midterm election is wrong and simply scary. 

[politicallefty]

Now come on. Did they really need to put in that you can't modify the statement that list what you can't modify? Kurt Gödel famous (famous logician) noticed that flaw when he was studying to be a citizen, and his friend Einstein pleaded with him not to make an issue of it at the test. This one I don't think is even questionable. Yes you are correct in the "mathematical proof" sense but not in terms of common sense.

I am only looking at the actual text of Article V. There is nothing in the text that makes it immune to amendment. Insofar as there is a prohibition on depriving equal suffrage in the Senate in Article V, the only amendment that cannot be passed is one that grants an unequal number of senators. And amending Article V to get around that could violate perceived original intent, but it does not violate the text.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

No way!

There is some sense in representing subnational entities in the Parliament of a Federal country like the US, but the current system, where every State has 2 Senators, is ridiculously excessive. I'd say reforming it to include some degree of proportionality between States is necessary (though it will of course never happen).

What's the point in making the Senate a smaller copy of the House? If you were to go that way, you might as well abolish the Senate altogether.

[Franzl]

No way!

There is some sense in representing subnational entities in the Parliament of a Federal country like the US, but the current system, where every State has 2 Senators, is ridiculously excessive. I'd say reforming it to include some degree of proportionality between States is necessary (though it will of course never happen).

What's the point in making the Senate a smaller copy of the House? If you were to go that way, you might as well abolish the Senate altogether.

No. Nothing in principle about states having a form of representation requires that the respresentation be equal.

Of course, abolishing the Senate would be preferable...