Should the senate be changed?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 22, 2024, 03:48:42 PM
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)
  Should the senate be changed?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Author Topic: Should the senate be changed?  (Read 13478 times)
David Hume
davidhume
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,657
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: 1.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: December 24, 2021, 05:19:56 AM »

As more and more people flock to cities, by 2050, about 15 states are expected to have 70% of the population. Especially as the rural-urban divide continues to grow , this could spell out trouble, like one party (the Republican party) has a lock on the senate just by winning 40% of the vote or something like that. I get the point of the senate was the represent the states, not the people, but since California is a state with more people, shouldn't it get more senators, the same way it needs more resources and has a bigger economy than any other state? I kind of think that a cool solution would be if senator's actual votes were weighted based on the population they represent, but that would bring new problems, like the fact that population is always changing and Republicans still exist even in CA and NY. We're already begginning to see this problem today; the senators who voted for Kavanaugh represent a minority of the country, and despite Dems winning the PV in 2016, and 2018 being a D landslide, it'll take another semi-landslide to flip the senate in 2020. Increased partisanship could make it more or less impossible for the party that aligns with urban voters to ever get a senate majoirty, even if they represent a majoity of the country. Does omething need to be done, and if so, what?

Bolded - The House of Representatives already accounts for the population differences in each state, as California has more representatives in the House than any other state. It would be a redundancy to have the Senate follow the same design, with more senators allocated to the populous states.

Just leave it as it is. Each state has different people, different lifestyles, different customs,  and different beliefs. Some states are more religious, some are more diverse, some have more resources, etc. The senate ensures that the differences in each state will always get some  attention, regardless of population (or lack thereof). And correspondingly, the House ensures that those smaller states donít get too much attention.

When you factor that the Senate doesnít exist on its own, that it exists alongside the House, then you should see that the system is fine as it is.




But why should voters from smaller states get extra protection in the senate and EC, when voters from large states and Urban Cities don't get any extra "protection" I would argue the house doesn't favor cities since usually cities vote 95% D, but rual areas are mostly 70-30 R minus rural districts that have a large minority population. In 2018, even though Dems won the house, it took them a landslide to win, whereas in 2016, Reblicans held more seats but barely won the PV. Literally, in every way, if you're a voter in an urban city, your vote is less powerful than a rural voter. That just seems wrong to me. Look at how the Rs can easily get a trifecta in an R+0 year, but Ds have to win in a landslide. Right now, there's only 2 Rs in objectivley blue states: CO and ME, but Dems have senate seats in WV, MT, AL and OH, alongside most of the seats in tossup states and still don't have a majority in the senate.
You have to remember that when the colonies declared independence, each of them was a independent sovereign. In the Articles of Confederation, each state has exactly the same voting right, regardless of population. Without the extra protection of the small states that you want to get rid of, why would they join the union, just to be dominated by the more populous states?

Based on your logic, the United Nation should be abolished. Countries like China and India should have the same voting powers as Europe plus North and South America combined due to their huge population.
Logged
Bush did 311
Vatnos
Rookie
**
Posts: 225
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: December 06, 2023, 10:06:12 AM »

Not a common proposal but I would increase the number of senators to 3 for each state so we can have all 50 states voting every time. "Senate map luck" is dumb and this would at least remove some randomness. It also increases the potential pool of talent for the presidency.

I would however devolution some powers from the Senate to the House--only after removing gerrymandring and increasing House terms to 4 years--with elections on midterm years.
Logged
TechbroMBA
Rookie
**
Posts: 181
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: February 26, 2024, 09:53:28 PM »

If the goal is to make the Senate into House 2, just get rid of it and make the legislature unicameral.

No doubt the party that would be harmed by this would scream bloody murder. While right now Democrats much prefer to the House to the Senate, I remember 2011-2015 when the House was a gerrymandered cesspit where democracy went to be dismembered and the Senate was free from such shenanigans.
Logged
Progressive Pessimist
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,729
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -7.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: May 13, 2024, 04:21:17 AM »

1000%. I support either adding a third statewide seat (so every state has a seat up every two year cycle) or making it a chamber similar to a parliamentary list seat equivalent, or something where they're allocatted by proportional popular vote in a state with every state getting however many seats. Of course, altering how we distribute based on the census will also need to be changed for the House as well (implement the Wyoming rule), and the electoral college's abolition while we're at it.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  
« 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 0.026 seconds with 11 queries.