John Dingell: Abolish the Senate

[AndyHogan14]

I knew I always liked former Congressman Dingell!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(Link)

[Tintrlvr]

Wish he would have said this while he was still politically relevant.

[UncleSam]

The entire point is still to protect small states from the laws of a small number of mega states. The states have some independence of one another and the senate is the chamber of Congress meant to represent their interests. The people’s house is meant to represent the interests of the large states. Our constitution is set up that way purposefully and just because one party or the other has a disadvantage in that chamber for a time doesn’t mean you should abolish it.

But gl pushing that as a policy platform in...senate races. Lol.

[Lechasseur]

The entire point is still to protect small states from the laws of a small number of mega states. The states have some independence of one another and the senate is the chamber of Congress meant to represent their interests. The people’s house is meant to represent the interests of the large states. Our constitution is set up that way purposefully and just because one party or the other has a disadvantage in that chamber for a time doesn’t mean you should abolish it.

But gl pushing that as a policy platform in...senate races. Lol.

This

[YE]

The entire point is still to protect small states from the laws of a small number of mega states. The states have some independence of one another and the senate is the chamber of Congress meant to represent their interests. The people’s house is meant to represent the interests of the large states. Our constitution is set up that way purposefully and just because one party or the other has a disadvantage in that chamber for a time doesn’t mean you should abolish it.

But gl pushing that as a policy platform in...senate races. Lol.

This

[emailking]

My usual spiel that you can't abolish the Senate without the consent of all 50 states as no Constitutional Amendment can strip a state of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent. (Note: no suffrage is not suffrage even if it is "equal" in a mathematical sense.) And good luck getting every last state to agree, much less 3/4 ths.

[AndyHogan14]

The entire point is still to protect small states from the laws of a small number of mega states. The states have some independence of one another and the senate is the chamber of Congress meant to represent their interests. The people’s house is meant to represent the interests of the large states. Our constitution is set up that way purposefully and just because one party or the other has a disadvantage in that chamber for a time doesn’t mean you should abolish it.

But gl pushing that as a policy platform in...senate races. Lol.

It is extremely unlikely that there is any change without something dramatic happening, but I could see (within my lifetime) the dissolution of the United States over the issue of the Senate. It is wildly undemocratic and the fact that it is the more powerful of the two houses of Congress just adds insult to injury. I would argue that the Senate is in every way like the first and second estates of Ancien Régime France where representatives of an extreme minority were able to overrule the majority—while I agree that there should be laws put in place to protect the minority; tyranny of the minority is a significantly more serious issue than tyranny of the majority.

My usual spiel that you can't abolish the Senate without the consent of all 50 states as no Constitutional Amendment can strip a state of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent. (Note: no suffrage is not suffrage even if it is "equal" in a mathematical sense.) And good luck getting every last state to agree, much less 3/4 ths.

That is true, but you could strip the Senate of certain powers via a regular constitutional amendment and I think if the country dissolving is the alternative, then you could get 3/4 to agree. In the interim, however, I think that there can be some consensus on giving certain powers to the House in addition to the Senate. Perhaps the House should be given the right to vote on judges/cabinet officials/treaties (the Senate would still retain these rights) and that could probably be done via statute.

[ON Progressive]

Massive FF

[Orser67]

My usual spiel that you can't abolish the Senate without the consent of all 50 states as no Constitutional Amendment can strip a state of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent. (Note: no suffrage is not suffrage even if it is "equal" in a mathematical sense.) And good luck getting every last state to agree, much less 3/4 ths.

Not that this would happen anyway (due to the difficulty of passing an amendment), but all you need is a constitutional amendment removing the equal suffrage part of Article V, followed by another amendment changing the Senate.

Alternatively, you could have an amendment strip the Senate of its power without actually abolishing it.

[Hindsight was 2020]

The entire point is still to protect small states from the laws of a small number of mega states. The states have some independence of one another and the senate is the chamber of Congress meant to represent their interests. The people’s house is meant to represent the interests of the large states. Our constitution is set up that way purposefully and just because one party or the other has a disadvantage in that chamber for a time doesn’t mean you should abolish it.

But gl pushing that as a policy platform in...senate races. Lol.

But we are fastly heading in the opposite direction were the minority is running tough shot over the majority. There is nothing healthy about a system where the GOP is running around like they have a mandate while they loses the popular vote by wider and wider margins

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The entire point is still to protect small states from the laws of a small number of mega states. The states have some independence of one another and the senate is the chamber of Congress meant to represent their interests. The people’s house is meant to represent the interests of the large states. Our constitution is set up that way purposefully and just because one party or the other has a disadvantage in that chamber for a time doesn’t mean you should abolish it.

But gl pushing that as a policy platform in...senate races. Lol.

This

[Free Bird]

When did suddenly not understanding the Connecticut Compromise because they lost seats become a Democratic talking point?

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

One of the stupidest points that leftists have brought up in recent years outside of cultural Marxist nonsense.

IT'S *clap* WHY *clap* WE *clap* HAVE *clap* THE *clap* HOUSE.  

It's all a balance: one figurehead, one based on states as a whole, one based on people in the states and a judiciary to keep all of them in check.

[Sestak]

One of the stupidest points that leftists have brought up in recent years outside of cultural Marxist nonsense.

IT'S *clap* WHY *clap* WE *clap* THE *clap* HOUSE. 

It's all a balance: one figurehead, one based on states as a whole, one based on people in the states and a judiciary to keep all of them in check.

Except the House doesn’t represent “the people” in states like Ohio and North Carolina due to gerrymandering - so the current system allows a minority to have complete control of the government against a majority with no control over anything.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

One of the stupidest points that leftists have brought up in recent years outside of cultural Marxist nonsense.

IT'S *clap* WHY *clap* WE *clap* THE *clap* HOUSE. 

It's all a balance: one figurehead, one based on states as a whole, one based on people in the states and a judiciary to keep all of them in check.

Except the House doesn’t represent “the people” in states like Ohio and North Carolina due to gerrymandering - so the current system allows a minority to have complete control of the government against a majority with no control over anything.

Then fix the gerrymandering laws to fix the districts; don't talk about removing the Senate.  It's like fixing a broken toe by amputating the leg.

[Zaybay]

Guys, guys. The Senate is a sacred institution! It allows the states to have a say in governance! We cant get rid of it.

 We should instead admit DC and PR as states! 4 easy senators! Maybe some of the islands as well...

[Boobs]

The notion of "small states" being protected from "large states" is a bit of a weird concept in a post-17th Amendment world... since, uhh, states don't "vote," people do. 

[TPIG]

When did suddenly not understanding the Connecticut Compromise because they lost seats become a Democratic talking point?

"Trump and the GOP are a threat to our institutions! How about we abolish the senate?!!!" 

[AndyHogan14]

When did suddenly not understanding the Connecticut Compromise because they lost seats become a Democratic talking point?

I am well aware of the Connecticut Compromise and why it was implemented, but that does not preclude me from advocating for change in a system that no longer makes sense in the modern day.

One of the stupidest points that leftists have brought up in recent years outside of cultural Marxist nonsense.

IT'S *clap* WHY *clap* WE *clap* HAVE *clap* THE *clap* HOUSE. 

It's all a balance: one figurehead, one based on states as a whole, one based on people in the states and a judiciary to keep all of them in check.

Then let's give the House the EXACT same powers as the Senate. The House should have a say over judges/cabinet appointees/treaties—why should the Senate (the more undemocratic of the two chambers) be the more powerful of the two?

[TPIG]

The notion of "small states" being protected from "large states" is a bit of a weird concept in a post-17th Amendment world... since, uhh, states don't "vote," people do. 

It's true that with popular elections of senators, some of the original purpose of the senate is gone, but other things, such as 6 year terms, still give senators a greater level of independence from the electorate, to act in ways they feel are best for their state.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

When did suddenly not understanding the Connecticut Compromise because they lost seats become a Democratic talking point?

I am well aware of the Connecticut Compromise and why it was implemented, but that does not preclude me from advocating for change in a system that no longer makes sense in the modern day.

One of the stupidest points that leftists have brought up in recent years outside of cultural Marxist nonsense.

IT'S *clap* WHY *clap* WE *clap* HAVE *clap* THE *clap* HOUSE.  

It's all a balance: one figurehead, one based on states as a whole, one based on people in the states and a judiciary to keep all of them in check.

Then let's give the House the EXACT same powers as the Senate. The House should have a say over judges/cabinet appointees/treaties—why should the Senate (the more undemocratic of the two chambers) be the more powerful of the two?

Or swap their powers maybe? I mean, there are a whole lot of measures in the middle to talk about before going full Palpatine.

[7,052,770]

When did suddenly not understanding the Connecticut Compromise because they lost seats become a Democratic talking point?

Incredibly disingenuous post. We all understand why it was implemented in the 18th century, but that doesn't mean we have to support its continued existence in the 21st century.

The Founding Fathers weren't divinely inspired, people. Just because they supported something way back then doesn't necessarily mean it was right then or now.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

When did suddenly not understanding the Connecticut Compromise because they lost seats become a Democratic talking point?

Incredibly disingenuous post. We all understand why it was implemented in the 18th century, but that doesn't mean we have to support its continued existence in the 21st century.

The Founding Fathers weren't divinely inspired, people. Just because they supported something way back then doesn't necessarily mean it was right then or now.

Old ideas sometimes work better, because they didn't have the noise and fury of everyday life in the 21st Century.  It's why the Tao Te Ching is still relevant, or the works of Aristotle.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

When did people start bringing up post-coup government reformation fantasies as legit political platforms?

[AndyHogan14]

When did suddenly not understanding the Connecticut Compromise because they lost seats become a Democratic talking point?

I am well aware of the Connecticut Compromise and why it was implemented, but that does not preclude me from advocating for change in a system that no longer makes sense in the modern day.

One of the stupidest points that leftists have brought up in recent years outside of cultural Marxist nonsense.

IT'S *clap* WHY *clap* WE *clap* HAVE *clap* THE *clap* HOUSE. 

It's all a balance: one figurehead, one based on states as a whole, one based on people in the states and a judiciary to keep all of them in check.

Then let's give the House the EXACT same powers as the Senate. The House should have a say over judges/cabinet appointees/treaties—why should the Senate (the more undemocratic of the two chambers) be the more powerful of the two?

Or swap their powers maybe? I mean, there are a whole lot of measures in the middle to talk about before going full Palpatine.

Palpy is my favorite Star Wars character...

In all seriousness though, everything should be on the table in order to make the government more responsive to the people. If the Senate were to become an advisory body (along the lines of the House of Lords), then I do not think many people would have a problem with the institution.