Making the Senate more democratic

[CreekDog]

The number of Senators representing each state shall be equal to 1 or more Senators according to the percentage of the national population that state contains.

This is proportional representation.



If some say this is unfair to states, the reason is because it is fairer to people than to states. The power of the state derives from the people and not vice-versa.

[SDuderstadt]

1. Stupid idea...

sorry.

[CreekDog]

2. how about for state legislatures?

also stupid?

[SDuderstadt]

11. Yes...n/t

[CreekDog]

28. the state legislatures thing was a trick question --Supreme Court made it unconstitutional

to allocate state legislative seats by anything other than population.

and while you accuse me of using a "strawman", in about 5 posts calling my idea stupid (in some form) you've used all of 7 words or so.

so it's not like you're making any effort to substantiate your argument.

[SDuderstadt]

30. Because your idea is...

stupid.

Do you understand the concept of checks and balances?

[quakerboy]

57. I guess I do. Do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances#Checks_and_balances

I would say its not directly applicable, seeing as we are not looking between 2 branches of government, but rather between states in the union. But even if you apply the theory across, I think you are on the wrong side of the argument. The point, as I understand it, is to prevent the consolidation of power in one part of government at the cost of all others and eventually the people themselves. But that is exactly what the senate accomplishes. It consolidates the power to block all progress or change in a very small group of people.

It makes it possible for approximately 3.58% of the us population to block all legislative desires of the other 96%. Fortunately the smallest states are not so homogenously behind any one political desire, but the fact that that is a possibility is, I believe, an inherent flaw. What power is that balancing or checking?

[SDuderstadt]

58. Read post # 45...

Apparently you didn't read deep enough into your own source where it refers to the check having a bicameral legislature imposes upon the legislative branch.

[quakerboy]

64. Shall we trade implied insults or discuss the topic at hand?

Your source link and mine are not the same article. The one I linked to says nothing about the bicameral legislature being a check to itself. Yours does. Bully for you.


However, as I read the rest of your linked article, it appears to me that you have to take it out of context to make the argument you make. They started with a unicameral legislature under the articles of confederation, with equal representation to each state. Sounds somewhat similar to the senate. To keep smaller states on board, they had to maintain a senate with equal state representation. But to progress toward the ideal they created the congress, with proportional representation to check it.

This would seem to dictate that the next step toward the ideal might be to get rid of or drastically restructure the senate, as it is a profoundly undemocratic institution, unfair to people. And in the end, it is the benefit of people which is the primary reason for the rights and responsibility's and structures they set up, right?

Do you care to respond to any of the actual points made in this post or the one above? I am interested in an actual thoughtful discussion, but if all we are going to do trade slightly snide content-less remarks, I will bow to your superior credentials and wait for the next conversation.

[SDuderstadt]

67. Nevermind

Try reading the constitution.

[CreekDog]

84. you argued to me it was stupid and said you weren't talking about it's constitutionality

in this very thread.

[CreekDog]

83. that's a good illustration of how undemocratic it is

:hi:

[SDuderstadt]

31. Your post # 3 IS a strawman and...

my post # 12 alone was 30 words, making your claim that I had only used 7 words "or so" an absolute falsehood.

[CreekDog]

71. why did you say making allocation by population for State Senates was a stupid idea?

especially when the US Supreme Court said in 1968 that doing otherwise was unconstitutional.

[SDuderstadt]

75. You didn't ask me about constitutionality...

dude.

Duh.

[CreekDog]

77. Oh yes, I realize you limit your posts to whether or not you think something is stupid

Wonder if you limit your thinking in the same way.

[CreekDog]

3. Also, do you think James' Madison's idea was stupid?

:shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

13. No, I think...

strawman arguments are stupid.

I'm also thinking you'd benefit from a Civics class.

[CreekDog]

85. you're thinking i'd benefit from a Civics class?

well, baby steps, at least you're thinking. :D

[CreekDog]

4. so you think the House of Representatives is a stupid idea

:shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

12. Nice strawman...

that's not remotely what I said. We have a bicameral legislature for a reason. Why do you think the Framers provided for different compositions? Think checks and balances.

[crazylikafox]

100. my civics class taught checks & balances, not checks & roadblocks

I think it's time to eliminate our House of Lords

[SDuderstadt]

101. "I think it's time to eliminate our House of Lords"

Arguably the dumbest post yet.

How, pray tell, would you propose to eliminate the Senate?

[DrToast]

5. Yeah, that'd be nice

The Senate was a gigantic mistake.

[Clio the Leo]

6. Works for me. Wyoming simply should NOT have as much legislative pull..

.... as California. Or at least a starting point would be to give DC AS MUCH power as Wyoming.

[golfguru]

7. Wyoming & Dakota's would have ZERO pull if senate is made

proportional to population. They have only 1 or 2 house reps as it is.

I think the framers were astute in making house proportional to population
and 2 senators from each state regardless of population. Bigger states like
CA, NY & TX have plenty of pull in the house. And the Wyoming types also have
plenty pull in senate. Kind of balances it all out.

Otherwise the bigger states would have all the power and could run roughshod over
the smaller states.

[quakerboy]

8. Why is that a bad thing?

I kind of look at it somewhat corporations. I think that we at DU, by and large, do not want corporations to have the rights of person hood. Why do we want states to have an equivalent to those rights, done in such a way as to provide extra right and power to, say, a voter in Delaware over one in Georgia?

[golfguru]

10. Because the elected congress critters represent actual, living

citizens somewhere. Every citizen needs representation in the congress.
And that includes the smaller states.

This discussion is kind of pointless anyway because the US Constitution clearly
defines how many senators will come from each state. And we all are well
aware how difficult it is to amend the constitution.

[CreekDog]

86. 19 million in California are represented by 1 senator AND 300 thousand in Wyoming are

if that makes things more fair, then you are not in favor of democratic rule.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. Wyoming and Dakota should have negligable pull.

A voter from Wyoming or Dakota should have the same pull as a voter from California or Texas.

If you live in a small state, you have much more ability to influence who your representative is, which gives you more power; to balance that out, your representative needs to have less power.

Giving small states power in the senate doesn't balance anything, it unbalances things.

[SDuderstadt]

20. That's why we have a bicameral legislature...

the Framers knew what they were doing.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. Arguably, but if so their goals were bad ones.

They were heavily constrained by the necessity to induce each state to join. Their goal was not to set up the most just state possible, it was to pander to 12 (I think it was 12, wasn't it?) large, powerful vested interests.

[SDuderstadt]

26. Why would you want both houses to be...

composed the same way?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

54. I think that all branches of government should be representative of the electorate.

In the US at present, neither is - small states are grossly overrepresented in both houses.

I see no particular advantage in having two houses over one, but two similar representative houses is better than one representative and one unrepresentative.

[SDuderstadt]

56. How in the world are...

small states overrepresented in the House???

[quakerboy]

80. That ones easy to answer

Wyoming- 1 congress person to 563k people

California- 53 congress persons to 37,253k
or 1 to 702k people.

Not nearly as imbalanced as the senate, but still not exactly equal.

If it were fully balanced, California would get an extra 13 congress persons.

If it were fully balanced and calibrated on the smallest population state rather than being arbitarily limited to 435, we would have approximately 548 congress persons.

Which means we are short 113 rep's of fully proportional representation in the congress. Which means we are short 113 electoral college votes of giving each citizen a full and equal vote for the office of the presidency, not counting senate seats.

[SDuderstadt]

98. I don't know which assertion is dumber...

that Wyoming is somehow "overrepresented" by having all of ONE member of the House of Representatives or that we should consider expanding the House to 548 members.

I never cease to be discouraged by the abject lack of understanding some here have of why our legislative system was designed by the Framers as it was.

Fucking unbelievable.

[CreekDog]

106. I certainly understand *why* it was designed as it was --I don't think that makes it correct however

our framers designed our system not just to address the needs of a Democratic Republic over many future centuries, but also to make it viable and adoptable at the time and place they were at.

so yes, some things were well thought out to make us viable 200 or 300 years from 1787, and some things, like how proportionally to allocate power among states (Articles of Confederation style -state based vs. Direct Democracy style --population based, or in between) were in large part dictated by what everyone could agree to in 1787.

and in 1787, the constitutional provisions related to slavery illustrate that the founders did not limit themselves to what would make for the best system long term, but incorporated provisions meant to overcome the barriers to getting the constitution adopted in the first place.

that you insist on calling me or my ideas "dumb" and "stupid" or effing dumb and effing stupid as well as effing unbelievable shows that you simply lack the patience not only to rationally discuss this topic but to even understand it.

so maybe you really should go to threads where you can handle a rational debate and where calling something effing dumb or effing stupid is a worthy contribution to the topic. on this however, it is not.

:hi:

[SDuderstadt]

107. I haven't called you dumb or stupid one single time...

dude. Another one of your stupid strawman arguments.

Apparently you can't read either. Bye, dude. Again.

[CreekDog]

108. how many times have i said called "me OR MY IDEAS" dumb or stupid?

repeatedly is how many.

you certainly have called my ideas (and others') stupid and dumb and you've done so repeatedly.

your language is so insistent and strident that the implication is clearly that you think we are dumb for even posting our ideas.

you have sought to shut down debate in this thread repeatedly, using declarative statements that are unsubstantiated and including in almost every one of those posts that you think our ideas are dumb or stupid.

and everyone sees that you're doing it. everyone.

[SDuderstadt]

109. Dude...

you don't get a pass by inserting "or". That's an old rhetorical trick. What if I said I know for a fact that you jaywalked or you murdered your next-door neighbor last night? The intended damage is already done.

So, unless you can find a single example where I have called you stupid, you might want to refrain from making false accusations.

Bye, again. Hopefully, this time it will sink in, dude.

[CreekDog]

110. i referred to the way you characterized my ideas and your stridency

as indicative that you did in fact think i was dumb or stupid for having said them.

not only that, this has all gotten so personal for you that everything you write seems not so much aimed at my ideas but at me personally.

since you can't discuss it rationally, you should take your own advice and argue with someone else on some other thread where you can add value.

it's not here, despite numerous wasted opportunities. :eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

111. You don't decide who can post in a thread...

dude. You're also not a mind-reader.

You can't even grasp that I don't engage with people who make false accusations. And, your idea is still stupid.

Bye, dude.

[quakerboy]

112. I can tell you what is "Dumber"

Mathematically, they are. Its not an assertion, its a mathematical fact, which your assertions are in direct opposition to. Which makes them that which is dumber.

See, I can play the "your ideas are dumb because I don't agree with them" game too. That said, I am done playing in this thread. I hope you enjoy your future glossing over the surface of topics, and I will attempt to aid your enjoyment by staying out of it with petty facts and figures.

[CreekDog]

88. in aggregate, small states have more representation than their population

the power of the 7 smallest states is far greater than say, New Jersey, though New Jersey has far more people than the 7 smallest states.

[vim876]

43. 13 nt

[CreekDog]

87. on slavery?

:rofl:

[Mass]

15. I'm fine with Vermont having as much pull as Texas.

DC should have representation, but this is a different issue

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. Why?

If - as I do, and you don't - you subscribe to the view that in a democracy* all citizens should have equal representation, then yes, DC should have representation.

But since you repudiate that basic principle of democratic governance, what grounds do you have for supporting representation for DC?



*For anyone who's going to try the tired old "We're a republic, not a democracy" line, spare me. You're a country that aspires to "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

[Mass]

21. If you want to have an equal representation, you need proportional elections,

giving people a say whether they are Democats or Republicans. Democrats in TX are not represented in the Senate, neither are Republicans in NY STate.

[golfguru]

52. We are not a democracy

We are a 'republic" as the framers wanted.

In a pure democracy, majority rules.
In a republic the minority has more protections.

[SDuderstadt]

53. We are a democracy, alright...

we just aren't a direct democracy.

Although often referred to as a "constitutional republic", a "representative republic" or a "democratic republic", the fact remains we are a form of democracy.

To claim otherwise is like denying that indirect lighting is, nonetheless, lighting.

[golfguru]

74. In a "pure" very decision would be made by a simple majority

Thus any group which has numerical majority could win every decision.
It is basically a mob rule. I am happy we are not that.

[quakerboy]

9. Oddly enough, If I tally it up

I get a senate split approximately 48R/52D, although with a potential for about a 20 seat swing either way, depending on how the winds blow.

Not that far off of what we have currently.


Practically speaking, it would create some issues. For instance, the election schedule. California would have multiple senator seats up each cycle, for instance. I could see that causing some confusion.

Also the schedule would potentially have to change after each census. If Arizona loses a seat that is up in 4 years, and Colorado gains one, but already has a seat up in 2 years and another in 4 years, when would the seat have to be vacated, and when would it have to be filled? Every census would conceivably lead to a spate of special elections, and also for senators who had recently campaigned and won their elections being forced to vacate their seats after a very short time in office.

[CreekDog]

37. That tally doesn't work, I got 108 members with (59-60D/48-49R

I allocated by percentage of population (but always at least 1) and rounded up.

Then I took the current allocation and applied it to the new allocation. If currently a 1-1 split, I simply split the new allocation (and got some half numbers, but this is just for illustration).

[quakerboy]

50. You have to do some math to get 100

I initially came up with 108 as well, but if leave out DC and the territories, and you round .89 and down to 0 and .9 and up to one, then you get an even 100 senators.

[CreekDog]

65. why was 100 senators sacrosanct to you? most of our history we did not have 100

besides, when i allocate based on the current Senate, i get a when i get a 58.5/48.5 split.

can you display your results?

[quakerboy]

78. I like even numbers

Plus I think it makes it more accessible. With 100, a simple majority is easy to track. you either got 51 or not. Plus its easy to think of in percentage, since you proposed doing it by % of population.


I didn't save the quick and dirty spread sheet I did. But its pretty easy to do. Any state under 1% gets 1 senator. Any state with .9 or higher gets rounded up. So Wisconsin gets 2 and Ohio gets 4. Any state with .89 or lower gets nothing for the partial, so Virginia gets 2 and New York gets 6.

As to the spread, there are some states that are pretty clear in inclination. NY is probably a safe Democratic stronghold. Oklahoma is probably a safe Republican strong hold. And I counted approx 20 seats in my chart that I could see swinging either way depending on the election. Pennsylvania, Florida, etc.

[CreekDog]

79. then i think my count is more objective because i didn't use my opinion to allocate by state

:hi:

[quakerboy]

81. This is true.

But if you want to take it to its objective ends, Why arbitrarily start with a 1 senator:1 percent population assumption. Shouldnt you really count one senator for Wyoming, as the smallest state, and then for each state divide the population by 563k, and allot the proper number of senators, rounding up or down at .5

[quakerboy]

97. Actually, on further thought

to be fully objective and fully representative, shouldn't we sit down with the population numbers and either come up with the lowest common denominator for all 50 states, then apportion representation based on that number, or alternately redraw the district lines without regard to arbitrary states, but instead purely by population?

[CreekDog]

105. Probably

though even something consistent like census blocks is divided by state lines.

[MasonJar]

14. That is why we have a House of Representatives. No to this idea!

Just what we need more Senators from Texas!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. Yes, that is what you need.

I'm mildly horrified that so many people don't see anything wrong with letting some voters have so much more power than others.

[SDuderstadt]

23. That's why we have checks and...

balances, dude.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

91. That's a non-answer. It's an empty and irrelevant slogan. N.T.

[SDuderstadt]

92. Empty and irrelevant slogan?

It's one of the central underpinnings of our system!

Nevermind, dude. I prefer discourse with folks who understand what our government actually does and how it does it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

95. Ironic, from someone who didn't even know that small states are overrepresented in Congress... N.T.

[SDuderstadt]

96. I don't agree with your assessment of the House...

dude.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. No need to appoint more senators, just weight their votes.

But yes, I agree that the current system is grossly unfair to inhabitants of larger states.

[SDuderstadt]

22. Another really bad and...

unworkable idea.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. I think you're wrong on the first count.

It would make America a much more justly-governed state, so it's not a bad idea.

It would require a constitutional ammendment that would never pass, though. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good thing if it did.

[SDuderstadt]

27. Really?

How would it not be a recipe for populous states overrunning less populous states?

[CreekDog]

36. doing as you say makes 10 people more powerful than 1

in some cases. 10 people in California have less representation in the Senate than 1 person in Wyoming.

what does a "state" have to do with anything if allocation of power to it reduces people's voting power so that one vote does not equal one vote according to where they are in the nation?

[SDuderstadt]

38. Dude...

for the last fucking time, study the concept of checks and balances.

[CreekDog]

39. i have and you haven't...you think they apply to people --they apply to the branches of government

legislative vs. executive vs. judiciary.

[SDuderstadt]

40. You don't think the composition of the Senate...

is a check to the composition of the House to keep the more populous states from overrunning the less populous states? Really?

P.S. My undergraduate degree is in comparative political systems.

[CreekDog]

41. It was to get the Articles' states to sign onto a new constitution

and if they lost too much power, they wouldn't have signed on.

That's also why we had slavery. Another compromise. Just because things were in the original constitution does not make them good.

[SDuderstadt]

42. Which created checks and balances within the...

legislative branch, precisely for the reason I stated.

Duh.

[CreekDog]

44. no, you think you're referring to the checks and balances issue

But in fact you're confusing it with proportional representation.

[SDuderstadt]

45. No, actually, I'm not confused about anything at all

Jesus, dude...this is getting fucking stupid. The proximate reason is because, to put it politely, you don't know wtf you're talking about.

In post # 39, you claim that the principle of checks and balances only applies BETWEEN the branches of government and deny that the principle can apply WITHIN a branch of government. You're dead wrong.

Furthermore, there were checks and balances within the legislature since there were two separate chambers.<20>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress#History

Congress in the Constitution

Just as the Constitution established a system whereby each branch of government would be checked by another, a bicameral legislature was chosen so Congress could in effect act as a check upon itself. For any law to be passed the consent of both chambers would be needed.

Ross English, The United States Congress, 2003, pg. 8

http://books.google.com/books?id=tzR2IgNgRK4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=congress+english+2003&hl=en&ei=MvNJTeT9GI2usAPx_oicCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=congress%20english%202003&f=false


Duh. As I said earlier, the real problem here is you don't know wtf you're talking about. Having said that, I'm not going to waste any more time on your silliness. I would, however, urge you to take that civics class I mentioned earlier.

[CreekDog]

46. why are you engaging in this discussion since you think i'm too stupid to talk to you about it?

and from the entire thread, it appears that anybody who disagrees with you is "stupid".

considering you want us to appreciate nuance and fine points, when discussing them, you call anyone who doesn't appear to agree with you 100%, you call them stupid --or what they are saying. if you want to talk about fine points and founders' intentions, you can't just call anyone else's wording or take on what they meant "fucking stupid".

why? well for one, it's NOT fucking stupid for me to say that the checks and balances did not include proportional representation.

the earth flat --that's fucking stupid. these points? no.

why don't you go post in a thread where you don't have to call everyone or their ideas stupid?

:rant:

[SDuderstadt]

47. Point to a single thread in which I called...

anyone stupid. Take your time.

[CreekDog]

48. i said you called the ideas stupid and fucking stupid

and you did, repeatedly.

[SDuderstadt]

76. Fucking unbelievable...

not only did you accuse me of something I didn't do, now you totally omit the part of your post that belies your false denial. How hypocritical.

Remember this?

"you call anyone who doesn't appear to agree with you 100%, you call them stupid".

Why did you leave that out, dude? How terribly sneaky. This just furthers confirms my earlier decision not to engage with you in your silliness.

[CreekDog]

82. In all fairness

I admit to liking your Tweets:

http://twitter.com/MayorEmanuel

[SDuderstadt]

90. More of your absolute silliness...

bye, dude.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

55. It would be exactly that, that's the point of it.

The whole idea of representative government is that ten people should have more representation than one person.

More populous states having more power than less populous ones, in proportion to their population, is a good thing.

[CreekDog]

104. i agree completely

:hi:

[tledford]

29. The whole point of the Senate is to counterract democracy.

Or "the rule of the mob" as Madison put it.

[Unvanguard]

34. No, the point of the Senate was to keep Rhode Island etc. from abandoning the union.

If you want to protect minority rights, it doesn't make any sense to do it by giving disproportionate power to small states. Indeed, the Senate historically has been the enemy of civil rights...

[totodeinhere]

32. I would not favor tinkering with our constitution in that way. And it will never ever happen.

Senators from small states will never allow it. It would need a two thirds vote in the Senate, so it could very easily be blocked by senators from small states. And then even if it passed the Congress, three fourths of the states would never ratify it because small states would block it.

So how about a return to reality here? Instead of wasting our time on the impossible, lets concentrate on things that might actually be possible.

[CreekDog]

35. wait, you're against it because you don't like it or because it's not possible?

you are arguing to contradictory things.

[Unvanguard]

33. The Senate has never been defensible. It wasn't even defensible when it was created.

It was acknowledged at the time that it was a pragmatic, unprincipled compromise to keep the small states in.

Edit: To do it right, though, they couldn't be all be elected statewide; that would give too much power to big states because of block voting. The Senate, frankly, should probably be like the House (assuming we don't want to do away with first-past-the-post all together.)

[saras]

49. High-population states consume resources, low-population states produce resources

These interest groups (consumers and producers) have different interests - that's what 'interest group' means. The current system provides some balance between the two, which would disappear in a completely population-governed system.

Like any generalization, of course it isn't always true.

Historically, the resource involved was mainly food. And personally, anything that reduces the influence of the corporate food system on my food is a good thing by me, whether it's fair to urban dwellers or not.

To some extent, the power of a state derives from the land, not just the people. I think the Indians were right about this, and mass culture is wrong, democracy or no democracy.

[CreekDog]

73. is that more important than making sure voters have equal power --to each other?

in a democratic society it's more important for each voter to have equal power than for the states they are in to have it.

[CreekDog]

89. why should 1 person in one state have more representation than 1 person in another?

everyone's vote should be worth the same in terms of the presidency and congressional representation.

or why not just let everybody's vote reflect how much land they own or are surrounded by. would that be fair?

no.

it is our senate representation and voting for president that makes us less Democratic than many, many nations.

[quakerboy]

51. I have an alternate solution to the Senate problem

Lets bypass states completely.

Lets redraw senate districts after each census, using a computer and a mathmatical model that bases the lines purely on distribution of population in the most contiguous possible spaces with no political factors considered.

[dairydog91]

59. Bad idea, and irrelevant since the Senate cannot be amended in that way. Read the Constitution.

Think of the Senate as the House of Lords in relation to the House of Commons. The Senate is designed to be slower and less susceptible to change during national mood swings, as seen in the last election. Like it or not, but it provides a counterweight towards the more plebian House.

And the composition of the Senate is laid out in the original text of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 3). That's a pretty tough nut to crack. Now check out Article 5 of the Constitution, which describes the amendment process:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; 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."

So yes, if 49 states propose an amendment to level the Senate to population levels, just one state can shoot the whole thing down. It's not gonna happen.

[CreekDog]

61. The Senate will still be the "cooling saucer" with fewer members, longer terms...

representing broader swaths of the population.

that aspect doesn't change.

[dairydog91]

62. Yes, but per Article 5, you cannot change its composition.

Unless you increase the number of senators from each state equally, not proportionally. Every state gets equal power in the Senate, and the Amendment process itself is designed not to allow the status quo to change.

[CreekDog]

63. It doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it

here, we talk about a lot of things that have poor prospects. are you proposing that we keep silent about it?

[dairydog91]

66. I'm proposing that it's pointless to discuss this.

Article 5 is very clear, too clear to change through judicial interpretation. I suppose you could dissolve the Constitution and start over again, but that's a terrible option, particularly in a nasty and fractured political climate.

[CreekDog]

68. you think it's harmful to discuss it

i don't.

was it harmful to talk about abolition of slavery before it was possible?

[dairydog91]

69. It's not harmful to talk about it, just pointless. The concepts are different.

And talk about the abolition of slavery was different, as the Constitutional "super-protection" of slavery in Amendment 5 was set to terminate in 1808. The Constitution set out a very clear date for when it could be amended regarding slavery, while it protected the Senate's composition in perpetuity.

I will, however, agree that I think actually making such a reform would be deeply harmful, possibly even fatal to the Union. To legally change such a deeply embedded protection, you'd essentially have to rewrite the Constitution. Can you imagine the 50 states getting together, in this political climate, and agreeing on a document as vital as a new Constitution, particularly when the purpose of such reforms is to deprive many states of their current legislative power in the Senate?

[CreekDog]

70. but protection of some voters having more power than others --there's no reason to talk about it?

we only talk about things we can foresee changing?

is that really a worthy standard?

what other issues that we cannot foresee changing should we not discuss on DU? if you can't name any others, then i think you are against talking about this one only.

[dairydog91]

72. Well, we can propose pie-in-the-sky hypotheticals all day long.

I am skeptical of discussing this one particular issue, and I think I've already established why the structure of Article 5 makes the composition of the Senate a unique case. Virtually any other part of the Constitution could be amended. If SCOTUS starts to enforce a more stringent view of the Commerce Clause, that could be amended. If need be, a Federal power could be greatly expanded through SCOTUS, a pro-choice amendment could go through, etc...

My point was simple: Making the Senate proportional, as opposed to equal, is BANNED in perpetuity by the Constitution, and furthermore that ban is structurally unremovable. The very Article that establishes the way the Constitution can be amended bans the use of the amendment process to change the Senate from its current state. This makes it, within the current political system, an untouchable issue. Everything else, however improbable, could be handled through the current political system.

Edit:

what other issues that we cannot foresee changing should we not discuss on DU? if you can't name any others, then i think you are against talking about this one only.

Just this one. And we can talk about it, of course, but I think it should be emphasized that this sort of reform would probably require dissolving the Constitution. That's not reform, that's revolution, and revolution, not matter how appealing it can seem in ugly political times, can become a monster.

[DatManFromNawlins]

99. Doesn't matter whether you can "forsee" it or not

The fact of the matter is that it isn't and will never change. It would require an amendment to the Constitution, which would require a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate, AND 3/4ths of the state legislatures.

So not only do you need for representatives and senators to betray their constituents on a federal level, but you need the vast majority of local legislatures to betray their constituents as well.

Again, it will never happen, it's worse than a pipe dream, and it's pointless.

[CreekDog]

103. with an increasingly mobile population, their people may want representation fairly no matter where

no matter where they go or live.

thus, if i'm living in Nebraska, I know i may well be living in Ohio in 2 years.

and most of us don't think of how just our own state is doing, but how the nation overall is doing.

and finally, Americans like to think of their country as the freest in the world. ultimately, if they learn that in this respect, they are less democratic than many of their peer democracies, it may have an effect.

[Hippo_Tron]

60. We already had this debate in the 1780's

Some people wanted a legislature where seats were appropriated based on population and some wanted a legislature where all states got equal representation. Because of this gridlock we compromised and got a bicameral legislature with one chamber based on population and one where the states were equally represented.

Nothing has really changed on this subject since the 1780's. Small states are still going to argue that they would have no voice if not for their equal representation in the Senate. And since 3/4ths of the states must approve a constitutional amendment either by legislative action or by convention, there is no chance that this will change.

[BlueMTexpat]

94. Your reaction was the same as mine - but

more elegantly expressed. :hi:

[BlueMTexpat]

93. Ain't gonna happen w/o a Constitutional amendment. nt

[CreekDog]

102. Obviously it would require that

the concept is worthy of discussion regardless. :hi:

[Hosnon]

113. I don't mind the idea of an upper house that is meant to counteract the fire of the populace.

But I don't like the way the Senate is set up. It would work just as well if the number of Senators per state were based on each state's population: they would still serve for 6 years and be elected statewide. Those two elements are the key elements in my opinion (not the 2 per state rule).

[SDuderstadt]

114. How would you keep it from...

overrunning the less populous states? More importantly, how many Senators would you allow for?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

115. You wouldn't, you'd encourage it to do so.

Making the less populous states less powerful would be a good thing - all citizens should be equal.

[SDuderstadt]

116. How would you...

"encourage it to do so"?

The problem with those of you promoting this truly screwy position is that you're looking at the Senate unidimensionally and assuming the only important objective of our form of democracy is "proportional representation", totally ignoring the importance of compromise, forging consensus and preventing the minority from being totally overrun by the majority.

Democracy isn't merely about majority rule.

[Hosnon]

117. Proportional Senate representation wouldn't mean no power for the small states.

Just less. Which, to me, is a step in the right direction because presently they have too much.

Plus, the idea that the U.S. is a union of sovereign states as opposed to a single country took a big hit with the Civil War. We no longer let the States elect Senators and the sky didn't fall.