538 article on Senate’s Rural Skew

[Orser67]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-senates-rural-skew-makes-it-very-hard-for-democrats-to-win-the-supreme-court/

The Senate is an enormous problem for Democrats given the current political coalitions, in which Democrats are dominant in cities while Republicans triumph in rural areas...

Because there are a lot of largely rural, low-population states, the average state — which reflects the composition of the Senate — has 35 percent of its population in rural areas and only 14 percent in urban core areas, even though the country as a whole — including dense, high-population states like New York, Texas and California — has about 25 percent of the population in each group. That’s a pretty serious skew. It means that the Senate, de facto, has two or three times as much rural representation as urban core representation … even though there are actually about an equal number of voters in each bucket nationwide.

[SevenEleven]

No sh**t. Abolish the Senate.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

You love to see it. The Senate is the bulwark of American values.

[Battista Minola 1616]

You love to see it. The Senate is the bulwark of American values.

A system where most people prefer one party and yet the other party holds power is bad. Since Senate results are becoming increasingly detached from popular opinion, the Senate is moving from a dumb anachronism to an actively malicious force in American politics.

What gives

[Nyvin]

You love to see it. The Senate is the bulwark of American values.

It's whats causing people to lose faith in the system.

[OSR stands with Israel]

No sh**t. Abolish the Senate.

The constitution literally makes it clear that you cannot do that unless every state consents to it.

[lfromnj]

No sh**t. Abolish the Senate.

The constitution literally makes it clear that you cannot do that unless every state consents to it.

Wait its every state? Can't you just do 3/4 with an amendment?

[OSR stands with Israel]

No sh**t. Abolish the Senate.

The constitution literally makes it clear that you cannot do that unless every state consents to it.

Wait its every state? Can't you just do 3/4 with an amendment?

Nope its literally one of the two things thats no allowed to be amendment unless every state consents

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html

provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

[SevenEleven]

No sh**t. Abolish the Senate.

The constitution literally makes it clear that you cannot do that unless every state consents to it.

That's not true. The Constitution only states that no state may be deprived of equal representation in the Senate without the state's consent. Removing powers and privileges from the Senate does not require the consent of all 50 states.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

No sh**t. Abolish the Senate.

The constitution literally makes it clear that you cannot do that unless every state consents to it.

That's not true. The Constitution only states that no state may be deprived of equal representation in the Senate without the state's consent. Removing powers and privileges from the Senate does not require the consent of all 50 states.

There is also always the ability to amend article V with 1 Amendment that requires only 3/4ths, and then change the Senate with another amendment that requires only 3/4ths.
And abolishing the Senate would only take 1 Amendment requiring 3/4ths as is. 0 = 0.

[Bismarck]

Can’t wait for the future when the democrats destroy the senate and the Supreme Court. Surely it’s wise to destroy the constitution because republicans have done slightly better among some small states relative to large states for a few election cycles? Heck, the ten smallest states have more democratic senators than republicans senators 12-8 while the largest 10 states are split 10-10.

[SevenEleven]

Can’t wait for the future when the democrats destroy the senate and the Supreme Court. Surely it’s wise to destroy the constitution because republicans have done slightly better among some small states relative to large states for a few election cycles? Heck, the ten smallest states have more democratic senators than republicans senators 12-8 while the largest 10 states are split 10-10.

Why should a party's success matter when it comes to doing the right thing? That's the difference between Democrats and Republicans. You guys only view things from a perspective of power. "Oh, the Senate was more Democratic than the House since 1994". I don't care. The Senate is an anti-democratic institution by it's very nature and should not have more power than the House of Representatives.

[Del Tachi]

Can’t wait for the future when the democrats destroy the senate and the Supreme Court. Surely it’s wise to destroy the constitution because republicans have done slightly better among some small states relative to large states for a few election cycles? Heck, the ten smallest states have more democratic senators than republicans senators 12-8 while the largest 10 states are split 10-10.

Why should a party's success matter when it comes to doing the right thing? That's the difference between Democrats and Republicans. You guys only view things from a perspective of power. "Oh, the Senate was more Democratic than the House since 1994". I don't care. The Senate is an anti-democratic institution by it's very nature and should not have more power than the House of Representatives.

Uhm...did the Democrats care about how "anti-democratic" the Senate was when they held seats in states like North Dakota, Arkansas, and Alaska?  Y'know, in the long ago of 2014?

[Former President tack50]

No sh**t. Abolish the Senate.

The constitution literally makes it clear that you cannot do that unless every state consents to it.

In fairness to Sev, you could just make it so the Senate is completely powerless and can be overruled by a simple majority of the House instead.

Basically turning it into an American version of the UK House of Lords

[StateBoiler]

You love to see it. The Senate is the bulwark of American values.

It's whats causing people to lose faith in the system.

What's causing people to lose faith in the system is 2 dumbass major parties that are increasingly being controlled by a very small section of the American electorate due to low participation rates in primaries and districts designed to ensure only 1 party can win, and both parties aid this by putting up every roadblock they can think of in front of any other party from seriously competing.

No person is allowed to argue the major parties are anything but failures when in the 2016 election they collectively nominated 2 terrible candidates in Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump for the presidency.

In fairness to Sev, you could just make it so the Senate is completely powerless and can be overruled by a simple majority of the House instead.

Basically turning it into an American version of the UK House of Lords

I'd just assume dissolve the country at that point. This country has to be federalist in character to work.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

relevant:

If your party is incapable of winning a Senate majority, boo hoo. You aren't winning enough rural voters. Try to do that instead.

Curious to see what you think after the inevitable future Dem EC win/PV loss (thanks to Texas). I think 2028 might be the year. Better start winning some urban voters!


If polarization and trends keep going the way they have been, things could get pretty ugly for a while. Permanent Republican lock on the Senate, permanent Democratic lock on the Presidency, endless gerrymandering wars in the House.

I don't regard anyone having a permanent hold on anything as a scenario that should seriously be used to justify changes to how we fundamentally arrange our Republic. Even leaving aside the necessity or lack thereof for the given constitutional change proposal, it's a false premise, whether those proposing it know it to be one or not. Every time parties have held a fairly enduring advantage, they never enjoyed foolproof advantages that can be enough by themselves. Rs had advantages in presidential elections from the Civil War to the Great Depression (owing to the wasted D votes in the South), but Cleveland and Wilson still won twice.  Ds had a critical edge in all 3 post-1932 for eons and in Congress until 1994, but Rs still won all but 1 election from 1968 to 1988, and Democratic majorities alone in either house or both were insufficient in blocking conservative policy (just ask Reagan in his first two years in office). The GOP wasn't stopped from winning back both houses in the late 1940s despite memories persisting of the Hoover administration, and in 1874, the Dems still won back the House in a landslide less than ten years after Lincoln died. Permanent locks don't exist in American politics.

[DC Al Fine]

Can’t wait for the future when the democrats destroy the senate and the Supreme Court. Surely it’s wise to destroy the constitution because republicans have done slightly better among some small states relative to large states for a few election cycles? Heck, the ten smallest states have more democratic senators than republicans senators 12-8 while the largest 10 states are split 10-10.

Why should a party's success matter when it comes to doing the right thing? That's the difference between Democrats and Republicans. You guys only view things from a perspective of power. "Oh, the Senate was more Democratic than the House since 1994". I don't care. The Senate is an anti-democratic institution by it's very nature and should not have more power than the House of Representatives.

Unfortunately, conservative old-timers on Atlas like Dei Tachi and I have noticed a rather strong correlation between how morally imperative much of Atlas thinks it is to reform government, and how beneficial said reform would be to the Democrats' near-term prospects.

That's not to impugn your motives, but I understand where Dei Tachi's cynicism is coming from.

[SevenEleven]

Can’t wait for the future when the democrats destroy the senate and the Supreme Court. Surely it’s wise to destroy the constitution because republicans have done slightly better among some small states relative to large states for a few election cycles? Heck, the ten smallest states have more democratic senators than republicans senators 12-8 while the largest 10 states are split 10-10.

Why should a party's success matter when it comes to doing the right thing? That's the difference between Democrats and Republicans. You guys only view things from a perspective of power. "Oh, the Senate was more Democratic than the House since 1994". I don't care. The Senate is an anti-democratic institution by it's very nature and should not have more power than the House of Representatives.

Unfortunately, conservative old-timers on Atlas like Dei Tachi and I have noticed a rather strong correlation between how morally imperative much of Atlas thinks it is to reform government, and how beneficial said reform would be to the Democrats' near-term prospects.

That's not to impugn your motives, but I understand where Dei Tachi's cynicism is coming from.

I fundamentally believe in one person, one vote. If that helps Democrats or even Republicans that's fine, but it doesn't really figure into the calculus. Remove the electoral college, abolish or reduce the power of the Senate, and tie the House of Representatives to the smallest state population at minimum, ideally every state would have at least two districts though.

[lfromnj]

Can’t wait for the future when the democrats destroy the senate and the Supreme Court. Surely it’s wise to destroy the constitution because republicans have done slightly better among some small states relative to large states for a few election cycles? Heck, the ten smallest states have more democratic senators than republicans senators 12-8 while the largest 10 states are split 10-10.

Why should a party's success matter when it comes to doing the right thing? That's the difference between Democrats and Republicans. You guys only view things from a perspective of power. "Oh, the Senate was more Democratic than the House since 1994". I don't care. The Senate is an anti-democratic institution by it's very nature and should not have more power than the House of Representatives.

Unfortunately, conservative old-timers on Atlas like Dei Tachi and I have noticed a rather strong correlation between how morally imperative much of Atlas thinks it is to reform government, and how beneficial said reform would be to the Democrats' near-term prospects.

That's not to impugn your motives, but I understand where Dei Tachi's cynicism is coming from.

I fundamentally believe in one person, one vote. If that helps Democrats or even Republicans that's fine, but it doesn't really figure into the calculus. Remove the electoral college, abolish or reduce the power of the Senate, and tie the House of Representatives to the smallest state population at minimum, ideally every state would have at least two districts though.

So you support an amendment for CVAP redistricting to end the real rotten boroughs in the house?

[SevenEleven]

Can’t wait for the future when the democrats destroy the senate and the Supreme Court. Surely it’s wise to destroy the constitution because republicans have done slightly better among some small states relative to large states for a few election cycles? Heck, the ten smallest states have more democratic senators than republicans senators 12-8 while the largest 10 states are split 10-10.

Why should a party's success matter when it comes to doing the right thing? That's the difference between Democrats and Republicans. You guys only view things from a perspective of power. "Oh, the Senate was more Democratic than the House since 1994". I don't care. The Senate is an anti-democratic institution by it's very nature and should not have more power than the House of Representatives.

Unfortunately, conservative old-timers on Atlas like Dei Tachi and I have noticed a rather strong correlation between how morally imperative much of Atlas thinks it is to reform government, and how beneficial said reform would be to the Democrats' near-term prospects.

That's not to impugn your motives, but I understand where Dei Tachi's cynicism is coming from.

I fundamentally believe in one person, one vote. If that helps Democrats or even Republicans that's fine, but it doesn't really figure into the calculus. Remove the electoral college, abolish or reduce the power of the Senate, and tie the House of Representatives to the smallest state population at minimum, ideally every state would have at least two districts though.

So you support an amendment for CVAP redistricting to end the real rotten boroughs in the house?

No, because children and non-citizens are people too and no less valuable than anyone else.

[Bismarck]

Can’t wait for the future when the democrats destroy the senate and the Supreme Court. Surely it’s wise to destroy the constitution because republicans have done slightly better among some small states relative to large states for a few election cycles? Heck, the ten smallest states have more democratic senators than republicans senators 12-8 while the largest 10 states are split 10-10.

Why should a party's success matter when it comes to doing the right thing? That's the difference between Democrats and Republicans. You guys only view things from a perspective of power. "Oh, the Senate was more Democratic than the House since 1994". I don't care. The Senate is an anti-democratic institution by it's very nature and should not have more power than the House of Representatives.

I keep hearing from democrats that the reason we have to “reform” the senate isn’t because “rural republicans” (ie a dogwhistle that means stupid red neck racist whites) have too much power.

[Tintrlvr]

No sh**t. Abolish the Senate.

The constitution literally makes it clear that you cannot do that unless every state consents to it.

That's not true. The Constitution only states that no state may be deprived of equal representation in the Senate without the state's consent. Removing powers and privileges from the Senate does not require the consent of all 50 states.

Right, just make it irrelevant like the House of Lords or the Canadian Senate.

[jamestroll]

God damn the USA. And we should stop even following the constitution.

[Calthrina950]

Can’t wait for the future when the democrats destroy the senate and the Supreme Court. Surely it’s wise to destroy the constitution because republicans have done slightly better among some small states relative to large states for a few election cycles? Heck, the ten smallest states have more democratic senators than republicans senators 12-8 while the largest 10 states are split 10-10.

Why should a party's success matter when it comes to doing the right thing? That's the difference between Democrats and Republicans. You guys only view things from a perspective of power. "Oh, the Senate was more Democratic than the House since 1994". I don't care. The Senate is an anti-democratic institution by it's very nature and should not have more power than the House of Representatives.

Uhm...did the Democrats care about how "anti-democratic" the Senate was when they held seats in states like North Dakota, Arkansas, and Alaska?  Y'know, in the long ago of 2014?

I must agree with this. Abolition of the Senate would clearly require a constitutional amendment. It cannot be stripped of its powers and privileges-as Sev has said-without such an amendment, and that would need to be approved by 3/4ths of the states, which would never happen in today's political environment. And any schemes to grant certain States more Senators than others (i.e. California over Wyoming) would require the approval of both states, as expressed through ratification of an amendment.

But putting this aside, I still don't understand why so many left-leaning individuals have become so opposed to the Senate and the Supreme Court, as they are constituted in their current from. Both institutions certainly have flaws, but a complete overhaul of them might necessitate a complete overhaul of the Constitution as it is, and I don't find that to be necessary at this juncture.

[Sol]

Tbh, if I'm a Democratic policymaker, my path to retaking the Senate is something along the lines of relocating a bunch of federal agencies to Montana and Iowa.