Abolish the Senate?

[VBM]

The Senate was created as a part of the Great Compromise in order to convince smaller population states into joining the Union by basically giving them more power than they deserve, but the existence of the Senate still make sense in modern times? Does anyone actually believe that it makes any sense for the 500,000 people in Wyoming to get as much Senators as the 40,000,000 people in California?

Obviously the Senate would never be abolished in the near future, but if it was solely up to you, would you keep the Senate or throw it in the trash?

[brucejoel99]

Idk if we should completely abolish the Senate, but it certainly needs to be reformed. I think it'd be far more constitutionally feasible to strip the Senate of its powers than to abolish it.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Nah, just abolish the filibuster.

[VBM]

Nah, just abolish the filibuster.

Do you not think that it’s an issue that the Senate gives very disproportional power to rural states with barely anyone living there?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Nah, just abolish the filibuster.

Do you not think that it’s an issue that the Senate gives very disproportional power to rural states with barely anyone living there?

The House does the reverse, it's by design in both cases.  I think the Senate works as a check on urban population centers, but the filibuster needs to be abolished.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The Senate is better than the House. If anything abolish the House.

[Hammy]

I've supported abolishing the Senate as long as I've followed politics, even in my hardline neocon days.

[Beet]

It's a red herring impossibility. What is possible, is breaking up some larger states to make the Senate more equitable.

[Blue3]

Abolish it!

[KaiserDave]

No. Just no.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Abolish it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Absolutely not, but the silent filibuster needs to be abolished.

[Dr. MB]

yeah sure, but I wouldn't really be opposed to putting a minimum of 3 reps for each state as a replacement. House would need to be expanded obviously.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

yeah sure, but I wouldn't really be opposed to putting a minimum of 3 reps for each state as a replacement. House would need to be expanded obviously.

I'd prefer to increase the Senate to three from each State.  Also, I wouldn't mind changing some things from requiring passage by both houses to passage by a joint session or in very limited cases by the House of Representatives alone. (For example appropriation of funds for programs previously authorized the current legislative process.)

[Blue3]

House should be 1000 members.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It would relieve the Ds from getting their hearts broken again if Ds dont get 53 or more Senators or more to install DC statehood which should of been enacted in 2009 along with immigration reform,  but Obama blundered and didnt get rid of filibuster

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Since Senate was intended to represent the states, as opposed to the general public (Senators being elected by legislatures), it wouldn't be a bad idea to turn it into an equivalent of the German Bundesrat, actual representation of states.

Naturally it should involve reducing certain exclusive powers.

[MarkD]

No. The Senate is part of checks and balances.

[randomusername]

No. Replace the Reapportionment Act of 1929 and break the cap on the House. Fixes the issues regarding the EC as well.

[ibagli]

No. Replace the Reapportionment Act of 1929 and break the cap on the House. Fixes the issues regarding the EC as well.

It doesn't fix the electoral college. The big issues there are caused by winner-take-all election of electors, not the (relatively small) imbalance toward small states. Increasing the size of the House could actually make the electoral college disparities worse by giving more power to large swing states.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

There's no point in even talking about this because it requires the assent of the very states it would disenfranchise. It's post-coup/revolution fanfic.

[Storr]

No. Replace the Reapportionment Act of 1929 and break the cap on the House. Fixes the issues regarding the EC as well.

This is another very necessary move. If space in the House Chamber is a problem (or excuse), have junior members share desks or have them use some of the visitor's gallery on the upper level.

When it comes to the topic at hand, I'm in favor of fixing the Senate. Many states used to have a county based state Senate (California for example). The upper house wasn't abolished after Reynolds v. Sims. States simply adopted districts based on equal population instead of by county. The US could easily do this or any other form of reform for the US Senate.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

House should be 1000 members.

Why though? I get the case for the Wyoming rule, but after that, increasing the size of the house doesn't really affect regional or partisan representation.

[Hope For A New Era]

Increase the size of the House until every state has at least 2 districts, then merge the House and Senate. Each state has two (or more?) representatives elected at-large, and then however many from the state's districts.

You could even reinstate the whole "senators elected by state legislatures" thing at that point, or make governors also representatives, or something.

[Brother Jonathan]

I can see increasing the size of the House, but abolishing the Senate (or even just reducing its powers) would probably have very serious, and negative, ramifications for our federal system and the smaller states within it.