Proposed Senatorial Reform
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:42:29 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  Proposed Senatorial Reform
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Proposed Senatorial Reform  (Read 2051 times)
Schiff for Senate
CentristRepublican
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,132
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 07, 2021, 11:33:24 PM »

I have a solution that would (somewhat) reform the current Senate allocation. Currently WY and CA have the same number of senators despite CA being 70 times as population. There is a solution that would keep the number of senators at 100, while making the system a tad more just, though the GOP would probably stop it, since it would hurt them. The idea is this: states get 1 to 3 senators, based on their population. The 17 most populous states could have 3 senators, the middle 16 states could have 2 senators, and the least populated 17 states would have 1 senator. Population rankings could be updated per census. It would make the senate system fairer while still giving small states some power (which is what the founders wanted). In fact, it's the best, since I'm quite sure the founders couldn't have forseen the massive population disproportionality we have today. The GOP would object greatly to these measures. What's your opinion? Do you have better alternatives?

The trouble with making the range greater than 1-3 is that the average becomes more than two. The average of 1, 2 and 3 is 2, so you can split the states up pretty evenly, but if the range was, say, 1-4, or 1-5, there would have to be more states with less votes than their would be with more votes (to balance out the fact that the average of 1, 2, 3 and 4 is 2.5, and their needs to be an average of 100/50 = 2 senators from each state), thus dooming it from passage. Of course, the GOP would make sure this didn't work (since it would kill their chances at winning presidential races or the Senate), but giving more states one senator won't be much appreciated their, either. For example, Delaware's two Democratic senators would also dislike this plan, since it would put one of them out a job (and reduce DE's congressional representation by 1/3). Giving even more states 1 senator would just ailienate them.


Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2021, 11:39:31 PM »

I think the Senate as a concept just needs to be thrown out.  I think equality between the states could be achieved in just the House if a "double majority" threshold was used to pass legislation.  For example, in order for a bill to become law it would need to achieve both a majority of raw votes and those votes would need to come from a majority of the states.
Logged
Schiff for Senate
CentristRepublican
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,132
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2021, 03:31:14 PM »

I think the Senate as a concept just needs to be thrown out.  I think equality between the states could be achieved in just the House if a "double majority" threshold was used to pass legislation.  For example, in order for a bill to become law it would need to achieve both a majority of raw votes and those votes would need to come from a majority of the states.

That would just make it even harder for bills to pass. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying...
 Are you saying that a bill would need a majority of total votes and a majority of votes from the majority of states? Because that would just make it much harder to get things done, and it would benefit the GOP immensely in most cases.
 Or will a bill just need to get votes from representatives in at least 26 states? If that's what you means, it sounds reasonable but I'm unsure what effect it would actually have.
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2021, 08:30:23 PM »

I think the Senate as a concept just needs to be thrown out.  I think equality between the states could be achieved in just the House if a "double majority" threshold was used to pass legislation.  For example, in order for a bill to become law it would need to achieve both a majority of raw votes and those votes would need to come from a majority of the states.

That would just make it even harder for bills to pass. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying...
 Are you saying that a bill would need a majority of total votes and a majority of votes from the majority of states? Because that would just make it much harder to get things done, and it would benefit the GOP immensely in most cases.
 Or will a bill just need to get votes from representatives in at least 26 states? If that's what you means, it sounds reasonable but I'm unsure what effect it would actually have.

The latter is what I was intending to propose.

If I'm remembering my Constitutional history correctly, one of the main purposes of the Senate was to ensure that the citizens of small population states didn't get steamrolled on legislation by a small number of states with larger populations.  I think this was especially relevant given that states with slaves were given an outsized amount of representation in comparison to the population that was actually eligible to participate in government at that time.

The effect of the idea I was proposing would make killing a filibuster and/or clearing a supermajority threshold a lot easier.  I also think it would need to be coupled with some serious partisan gerrymandering laws and/or proportional representation to prevent a party from trying to seize control over an entire delegation by cracking the other party's voters.
Logged
NewYorkExpress
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,823
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2021, 04:05:36 AM »

I think the Constitution needs to just accept that the states aren't equal and they never have been.

Abolish the Senate, and replace it with something similar to what the House of Lords is in the UK.

A (noble) upper house with little actual power.

Most of the Senate's powers, like ratifying treaties could go to the House of Representatives.

Presidential appointments would be automatic, with the House of Representatives being able to impeach and convict appointees, but not having the ability to vote on the nomination of said appointees.
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,130
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2021, 10:20:38 AM »

What about the states that will change the number of Senate seats it has after a new census has come out? For example, suppose a state was the 33rd largest state as of the 2010 census but it will be the 34th state as of the 2020 census, and suppose it elects Senators in the elections of 2018 and 2020, but it will have only one Senator as of 2022?

Also, do not forget about the fact that to make this change to the Senate, you have to adopt a constitutional amendment that has to be ratified by all 50 states.
Logged
Schiff for Senate
CentristRepublican
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,132
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2021, 10:09:33 PM »

What about the states that will change the number of Senate seats it has after a new census has come out? For example, suppose a state was the 33rd largest state as of the 2010 census but it will be the 34th state as of the 2020 census, and suppose it elects Senators in the elections of 2018 and 2020, but it will have only one Senator as of 2022?

Also, do not forget about the fact that to make this change to the Senate, you have to adopt a constitutional amendment that has to be ratified by all 50 states.

I thought it only needed ratification from at least 3/4 (38) states, not necessarily all 50. If it does need all 50 states, this reform definitely won't pass (not that it's likely to anyway), since smaller states won't be to keen on losing a senator, in many cases 1/4 or even 1/3 of their congressional representation.
Logged
beesley
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,140
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: 2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 22, 2021, 04:40:27 AM »

I think the Constitution needs to just accept that the states aren't equal and they never have been.

Abolish the Senate, and replace it with something similar to what the House of Lords is in the UK.

A (noble) upper house with little actual power.

Most of the Senate's powers, like ratifying treaties could go to the House of Representatives.

Presidential appointments would be automatic, with the House of Representatives being able to impeach and convict appointees, but not having the ability to vote on the nomination of said appointees.

Interestingly a number of (insignificant) UK politicians have proposed doing the reverse. Richard Leonard for example wanted to replace the House of Lords with a 'Senate of nations and regions.' I would imagine that would be elected more like the UK's former European Parliament delegation though.

I wonder how you would want the membership of this house to be elected/appointed, and why that is at all preferable to simply having a unicameral legislature.
Logged
NewYorkExpress
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,823
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 22, 2021, 05:03:05 AM »

I think the Constitution needs to just accept that the states aren't equal and they never have been.

Abolish the Senate, and replace it with something similar to what the House of Lords is in the UK.

A (noble) upper house with little actual power.

Most of the Senate's powers, like ratifying treaties could go to the House of Representatives.

Presidential appointments would be automatic, with the House of Representatives being able to impeach and convict appointees, but not having the ability to vote on the nomination of said appointees.

Interestingly a number of (insignificant) UK politicians have proposed doing the reverse. Richard Leonard for example wanted to replace the House of Lords with a 'Senate of nations and regions.' I would imagine that would be elected more like the UK's former European Parliament delegation though.

I wonder how you would want the membership of this house to be elected/appointed, and why that is at all preferable to simply having a unicameral legislature.

I'd probably support repeal of the seventeenth amendment in that scenario, and have the state legislatures appoint Senators.

As for abolishing the Senate, it literally cannot be done. The one provision in the constitution that cannot be repealed is equal representation in the Senate, which means the Senate can't be abolished either.
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,447
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 13, 2021, 01:35:11 PM »

What about the states that will change the number of Senate seats it has after a new census has come out? For example, suppose a state was the 33rd largest state as of the 2010 census but it will be the 34th state as of the 2020 census, and suppose it elects Senators in the elections of 2018 and 2020, but it will have only one Senator as of 2022?

Also, do not forget about the fact that to make this change to the Senate, you have to adopt a constitutional amendment that has to be ratified by all 50 states.

I thought it only needed ratification from at least 3/4 (38) states, not necessarily all 50. If it does need all 50 states, this reform definitely won't pass (not that it's likely to anyway), since smaller states won't be to keen on losing a senator, in many cases 1/4 or even 1/3 of their congressional representation.

Article V shields equal representation of the states in the Senate from being amended without the unanimous ratification of any amendment altering the equality among the states therein, although the size of the Senate could still be changed by the regular amendment process so long as each state would continue to have equal representation therein post-ratification.
Logged
Schiff for Senate
CentristRepublican
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,132
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 13, 2021, 02:04:48 PM »

What about the states that will change the number of Senate seats it has after a new census has come out? For example, suppose a state was the 33rd largest state as of the 2010 census but it will be the 34th state as of the 2020 census, and suppose it elects Senators in the elections of 2018 and 2020, but it will have only one Senator as of 2022?

Also, do not forget about the fact that to make this change to the Senate, you have to adopt a constitutional amendment that has to be ratified by all 50 states.

I thought it only needed ratification from at least 3/4 (38) states, not necessarily all 50. If it does need all 50 states, this reform definitely won't pass (not that it's likely to anyway), since smaller states won't be to keen on losing a senator, in many cases 1/4 or even 1/3 of their congressional representation.

Article V shields equal representation of the states in the Senate from being amended without the unanimous ratification of any amendment altering the equality among the states therein, although the size of the Senate could still be changed by the regular amendment process so long as each state would continue to have equal representation therein post-ratification.

Well, then everything else (like GOP obstructionism) is a moot point. Very unlikely states like WY and VT would agree to losing a third of their federal representation.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.22 seconds with 12 queries.