Abolish the Senate?

[Hope For A New Era]

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.

I think people really overestimate how much of a problem this would be. There really is no political matter for which small states having more representation would make a difference. They are already unable to make a difference only using the representation that they already have. For example, West Virginia's congressional delegation couldn't revive coal even if it was doubled in size.

Basically, I'm saying the small states wouldn't be any more "outcompeted" than they already are, so we may as well aim for optimal partisan fairness by abolishing the Senate and the Electoral College.

By the way, it should be very easy to convince the Republicans to support abolishing the EC. Just make some ads that go on and on about how "the liberals are going to take over Texas and minority-rule the country forever!" and suddenly the EC will transform from "a great and glorious amplifier to give the small states (read: rural white people) a voice" to "an antiquated system created by stuffy elitists 250 years ago who had no idea what the 2020s would be like. They were probably all closet socialists."

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

FTFY. The requirement of every State agreeing in order to change equal State representation in the Senate, makes changing that extremely difficult.  It would be far simpler to reduce its Power or even eliminate the Senate.

[brucejoel99]

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.

FTFY. The requirement of every State agreeing in order to change equal State representation in the Senate, makes changing that extremely difficult.  It would be far simpler to reduce its Power or even eliminate the Senate.

Technically, eliminating the Senate would still require every state to agree as abolishing the Senate - unlike reducing its powers - would inherently deprive the states of their equal representation therein.

[SInNYC]

I am all for abolishing the senate, mainly because I believe in human rights, not government rights. The senate was all about preserving the rights of state governments over human rights.

I also find it hypocritical that those who claim to be anti big government tend to be the strongest supporters of the concept of elevating [state] government rights over the rights of citizens, with the loony ones even wanting to repeal the 17th amendment.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I am all for abolishing the senate, mainly because I believe in human rights, not government rights. The senate was all about preserving the rights of state governments over human rights.

I also find it hypocritical that those who claim to be anti big government tend to be the strongest supporters of the concept of elevating [state] government rights over the rights of citizens, with the loony ones even wanting to repeal the 17th amendment.

States rights also permit states to give more expansive rights than the federal government tho. By empowering states its possible to go beyond federal minimums. The death penalty is Constitutional under the cruel and unusual punishment ban. Many states have given more expansive protections against cruel and unusual punishments by banning capital punishment. Ditto for state RFRAs. Ditto for the other rights. States rights means more than slavery and segregation and the left usually remembers that when they dont control the federal branch. Reserving all unenumerated powers to the states almost always allows for more rights.

[Blue3]

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.

FTFY. The requirement of every State agreeing in order to change equal State representation in the Senate, makes changing that extremely difficult.  It would be far simpler to reduce its Power or even eliminate the Senate.

Technically, eliminating the Senate would still require every state to agree as abolishing the Senate - unlike reducing its powers - would inherently deprive the states of their equal representation therein.

Or they amend that part of the Constitution too. And for those saying it can't be done, I think there would be a good SCOTUS argument in favor of allowing it.

[brucejoel99]

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.

FTFY. The requirement of every State agreeing in order to change equal State representation in the Senate, makes changing that extremely difficult.  It would be far simpler to reduce its Power or even eliminate the Senate.

Technically, eliminating the Senate would still require every state to agree as abolishing the Senate - unlike reducing its powers - would inherently deprive the states of their equal representation therein.

Or they amend that part of the Constitution too. And for those saying it can't be done, I think there would be a good SCOTUS argument in favor of allowing it.

The originalist SCOTUS would gladly invalidate any amendment that represents an effort to dilute the influence in the Senate of the smaller states, including (&, indeed, especially) one which eliminates the Equal Suffrage Clause.

[Blue3]

Debatable.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am all for abolishing the senate, mainly because I believe in human rights, not government rights. The senate was all about preserving the rights of state governments over human rights.

I also find it hypocritical that those who claim to be anti big government tend to be the strongest supporters of the concept of elevating [state] government rights over the rights of citizens, with the loony ones even wanting to repeal the 17th amendment.

This conceptualization of human rights uber alles fails to account for the obvious reality that humans are horrible creatures prone to greed, selfishness and prejudice. It is therefore incumbent that majoritarian impulses of the temporary and popular majority should be checked by an institutional counter force, the same way in which we would expect such a counter force to restrain the out of control executive from its tyranny, so to should the tyranny of the majority be restrained.

We cannot always assume that the majority of the people will be on the right side of history. This premise comes from the lessons drawn from the Civil War and afterwards regarding slavery and segregation. Yet it must also be noted that in every cases these were instances of majoritarian fiat being exerted at the state level, with no restraint or inhibitor of such from occurring. Likewise it is very possible for the majority to likewise be out of order and to push for violations of the minority via the majoritarian paths to power the House and in some cases the Presidency.

One should point out that Andrew Jackson found most of his opposition in the Senate and the Supreme Court, the two most anti-democratic institutions in our system.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

3 senators per state, so there’s one up every two years. Then, nationwide popular vote for the Senate by party. Divvy up the 50 seats for that year by party, with one state getting one senator. The state with the highest popular vote for a party gets a senator of that party on down the line until a party reaches its proportional number of seats. Not sure how you’d pick which party got which state in the event of a really lopsided vote (as in one party winning a lot in the popular vote, but few states). Figure a minimum threshold of 2% to be able to get seats. Popular vote for primaries to determine who would represent each party in the Senate.

Each state still has an equal number of senators, the off-year senate issue is fixed, and the senate would represent the popular vote. Combine this with the Wyoming rule so that the Electoral College isn’t too imbalanced towards the small states.

[Astatine]

Every single federal state has a chamber representing the federal subjects. Some are made up like the US Senate (Swiss Estate Council representing 2 Councillors per Canton, only different for "Half-Cantons"), some are more or less proportionate (like the Austrian Federal Council with populated states having more Councillors than the less populated).

The German system of Bundesrat, which had been mentioned before, would not work out equally since all Government members are dependent on the legislative majority of the ruling party/coalition. Statewide elected offices such as Attorney General, SoS or Auditor simply don't exist. Smaller states have 3 seats, while larger have maximum 6 and each state government has to vote unanimously.
In US, I wouldn't see how this could work out.

[SingingAnalyst]

Keep it. Perhaps reform it so the 10 largest states get 3 Senators instead of 2, thus making it slightly more representative.

I see the House as a more representative body, with the Senate being more of a deliberative body (like the British House of Lords).

[Damocles]

- Shorten Senate terms to four years.

- Elect six Senators per state.

- Elect Senators using a variant of the single transferable vote.

- Sort the states into three classes.

- Elect one-third of the Senate every 16 months.

[SWE]

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.

No it doesn't? The House also gives disproportionate power to rural areas just like the Senate does, just to a far, far, far lesser extent.

[Ferguson97]

yes, and uncap the House.

[VBM]

No. The Senate is part of checks and balances.

The current checks and balances is flawed.

[All Along The Watchtower]

No. The Senate is part of checks and balances.

Yes, Mitch McConnell is certainly checking the power of the executive branch, as evidenced by all of the judicial branch appointments he’s been rejecting since 2017.