Should the US get rid of the Senate?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

That's the best reason I've every heard. Not that it's much good.

State house elections are just like Federal ones. You get a choice of two possible winners, and a few losers on the ballot too. Pretty much the same for the state Senate (if any). And you get a statewide vote for Governor. HOW does paying more attention to that process get a voter their choice of Federal Senator?

In this countru voter turnout is lowest when non federal elections occur. making state representative elections count for something on the federal level, will hopefully draw more people to vote during these elections, which means they get more accurate represntation.

It might have a slight effect. Not nearly as much as paying people to vote would.

[Old Hope]

Article V

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.

Without the consent of every single state, "getting rid" of the Senate cannot be done even by constitutional amendment.

Not by constitutional means, anyway.

Getting rid of it, no. But removing powers from it? That`s possible. You could, for example, move the confirmation power to the House of Representatives.

[Loben III]

Not by constitutional means, anyway.

Getting rid of it, no. But removing powers from it? That`s possible. You could, for example, move the confirmation power to the House of Representatives.

They’re the lower house, tho.

[Ethel mermania]

In this countru voter turnout is lowest when non federal elections occur. making state representative elections count for something on the federal level, will hopefully draw more people to vote during these elections, which means they get more accurate represntation.

It might have a slight effect. Not nearly as much as paying people to vote would.

Gives new meaning to vote early, vote often. Agreed.

[Novus America]

Different US states do have different political concerns and needs, especially in a vast country of 330 million people who differ significantly both culturally and politically based on their geographical location. I've felt more familiar in parts of Canada, for instance, than in the South. And that really speaks to our particular need for representatives that can represent the interests of a given state (even if that's usually subverted by political opportunism and cynicism).

People have different political concerns and needs, and those concerns and needs do not necessarily line up neatly with the boundaries of their states, nor are those concerns and needs necessarily anywhere near unanimous across the state.

Although true, and thus will always be that case, each state has its own unique laws, constitution, and governments that apply across states. States have their own strong independent identity.

Trying to abolish all states in the US makes about as much sense as trying to turn the EU into a single unitary state.
Thankfully it is not going to happen.

And it would horrible if it hastened. Having most things done at the state and local level works.

[Ifreann]

Getting rid of it, no. But removing powers from it? That`s possible. You could, for example, move the confirmation power to the House of Representatives.

They’re the lower house, tho.

So?

[Loben III]

They’re the lower house, tho.

So?

Appointments shouldn’t be left up to the political equivalent of the peanut gallery.

[Ifreann]

So?

Appointments shouldn’t be left up to the political equivalent of the peanut gallery.

That's not what "lower house" means.

[US-SSR]

The more I see the "small states vs. large states" argument the less I buy it. The main conflict in US society isn't California and Texas vs. Rhode Island and Wyoming, it's the rich and powerful in California, Texas, Rhode Island, Wyoming and the other 46 states vs. the working people of California, Texas, Rhode Island and Wyoming and the other 46 states. Seems to me those interests making common cause with people in smaller, usually more reactionary, states isn't a particularly good argument for keeping the ridiculously outsized overrepresentation of smaller states found in the US Senate.

[Loben III]

The more I see the "small states vs. large states" argument the less I buy it. The main conflict in US society isn't California and Texas vs. Rhode Island and Wyoming, it's the rich and powerful in California, Texas, Rhode Island, Wyoming and the other 46 states vs. the working people of California, Texas, Rhode Island and Wyoming and the other 46 states. Seems to me those interests making common cause with people in smaller, usually more reactionary, states isn't a particularly good argument for keeping the ridiculously outsized overrepresentation of smaller states found in the US Senate.

Again.

The House of Representatives exist.

[Duvniask]

The more I see the "small states vs. large states" argument the less I buy it. The main conflict in US society isn't California and Texas vs. Rhode Island and Wyoming, it's the rich and powerful in California, Texas, Rhode Island, Wyoming and the other 46 states vs. the working people of California, Texas, Rhode Island and Wyoming and the other 46 states. Seems to me those interests making common cause with people in smaller, usually more reactionary, states isn't a particularly good argument for keeping the ridiculously outsized overrepresentation of smaller states found in the US Senate.

Again.

The House of Representatives exist.

Which exists in a state of almost constant gridlock with the Senate. You have two often irreconcilable chambers, which is a terrible system for getting anything done.

[Outer Acharet]

The more I see the "small states vs. large states" argument the less I buy it. The main conflict in US society isn't California and Texas vs. Rhode Island and Wyoming, it's the rich and powerful in California, Texas, Rhode Island, Wyoming and the other 46 states vs. the working people of California, Texas, Rhode Island and Wyoming and the other 46 states. Seems to me those interests making common cause with people in smaller, usually more reactionary, states isn't a particularly good argument for keeping the ridiculously outsized overrepresentation of smaller states found in the US Senate.

So, eat the rich, then?

[Ethel mermania]

Again.

The House of Representatives exist.

Which exists in a state of almost constant gridlock with the Senate. You have two often irreconcilable chambers, which is a terrible system for getting anything done.

that is kind of the point, the government shouldn't do anything unless most of the people agree.

[Novus America]

Which exists in a state of almost constant gridlock with the Senate. You have two often irreconcilable chambers, which is a terrible system for getting anything done.

that is kind of the point, the government shouldn't do anything unless most of the people agree.

It is. Besides the fact that plenty of laws still get passed, we do not want or need too much action at the federal level.
The vast majority of day to day matters are not a federal matter, and the feds meddling in them is often unwelcome and unneeded. The feds already meddle too much in small local matters they are not supposed to.

I strongly believe in subsidiarity, that things should be handled at a lowest level when possible.

We do not need the go running to the feds to fix every local problem. Really the state legislature and county or city council matter more in our day to day lives.

[Duvniask]

Which exists in a state of almost constant gridlock with the Senate. You have two often irreconcilable chambers, which is a terrible system for getting anything done.

that is kind of the point, the government shouldn't do anything unless most of the people agree.

You think most people wanted those government shutdowns that have been happening these past years? And speaking of what "most people want", the Senate is definitely not really a good measure of that, because it is, by its nature, representative of states with vastly differing population sizes, whereas the House at least is something approaching proportionality in representation.

[Novus America]

that is kind of the point, the government shouldn't do anything unless most of the people agree.

You think most people wanted those government shutdowns that have been happening these past years? And speaking of what "most people want", the Senate is definitely not really a good measure of that, because it is, by its nature, representative of states with vastly differing population sizes, whereas the House at least is something approaching proportionality in representation.

Most people are barely affected by them. I mean sure they are not optimal but they are not that big a deal to most people either.
They are a bigger deal for people outside the US than people inside the US. Probably because most people outside the US seem to know very little about the US.

[Jedi Council]

Implying I support colonialism?

If so, that's quite an assumption.

Well, as a Canadian you are essentially a colonist and benefiting from British colonialism.

Assuming you're not First Nations.

I am not first nations no.

Benefitting and having privilege from colonial systems =/= supporting colonialism.

[Arlenton]

No. And the Senate is supposed to represent the semi-autonomous states by giving each two senators. The populations of the states are irrelevant.

Well, no, that's just what the House does.

The House is based on population. The Senate is not. I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

[Jedi Council]

Parliamentary US. I wanna see that happen within my lifetime.

Parliamentary systems do generally function better, in my opinion, than Presidential ones. But American political culture is much too focused on checks and balances to ever stomach having the executive and the legislative branches be joined.

[Duvniask]

You think most people wanted those government shutdowns that have been happening these past years? And speaking of what "most people want", the Senate is definitely not really a good measure of that, because it is, by its nature, representative of states with vastly differing population sizes, whereas the House at least is something approaching proportionality in representation.

Most people are barely affected by them. I mean sure they are not optimal but they are not that big a deal to most people either.

Sure, having the federal government functions suspended is no big deal. It's not like this impacts millions of people, even in the short term.


It also doesn't really matter to my point, because people obviously want a government (and I'm including Congress, the legislative branch, here too) that isn't constantly at an impasse and can actually carry out political goals. If it cannot do that, it becomes ineffective and cannot respond to any of the problems faced by society. Political paralysis is not good, hombre, because people actually want things to change for the better, no matter what their view of "better" is; and as things stand, the current alignment satisfies barely anyone: people hate Congress.

[Ethel mermania]

that is kind of the point, the government shouldn't do anything unless most of the people agree.

You think most people wanted those government shutdowns that have been happening these past years? And speaking of what "most people want", the Senate is definitely not really a good measure of that, because it is, by its nature, representative of states with vastly differing population sizes, whereas the House at least is something approaching proportionality in representation.

When folks disagree I would rather the government do nothing.

And if that includes a shutdown, and that is a problem for all, change the law to have the current appropriation carry through till a new one is approved.

[Deacarsia]

Nay, the United States should not get rid of the Senate. The Senate was intended to represent the states, while the House of Representatives represents the people. If anything, the Seventeenth Amendment ought to be repealed.

[Ethel mermania]

Most people are barely affected by them. I mean sure they are not optimal but they are not that big a deal to most people either.

Sure, having the federal government functions suspended is no big deal. It's not like this impacts millions of people, even in the short term.


It also doesn't really matter to my point, because people obviously want a government (and I'm including Congress, the legislative branch, here too) that isn't constantly at an impasse and can actually carry out political goals. If it cannot do that, it becomes ineffective and cannot respond to any of the problems faced by society. Political paralysis is not good, hombre, because people actually want things to change for the better, no matter what their view of "better" is; and as things stand, the current alignment satisfies barely anyone: people hate Congress.

No we don't. We want government to stay out of our lives unless it is necessary to intrude.

And folks have hated congress since congress has been in existence.

[Novus America]

Most people are barely affected by them. I mean sure they are not optimal but they are not that big a deal to most people either.

Sure, having the federal government functions suspended is no big deal. It's not like this impacts millions of people, even in the short term.


It also doesn't really matter to my point, because people obviously want a government (and I'm including Congress, the legislative branch, here too) that isn't constantly at an impasse and can actually carry out political goals. If it cannot do that, it becomes ineffective and cannot respond to any of the problems faced by society. Political paralysis is not good, hombre, because people actually want things to change for the better, no matter what their view of "better" is; and as things stand, the current alignment satisfies barely anyone: people hate Congress.

Why are you lecturing me about this. I lived through the last partial shut down. I know what it was like. You however have obviously no idea at all.

First of all it actually is not that big a deal to most. The problem is you do not seem to understand how the US works at all. It is always a much bigger deal to people outside the US than in it funnily enough. You probably get more worried more about it than the average American.

Most things are done at the state to local level, the average person has very limited direct interaction with the federal government.
Also no, only nonessential functions funded by discretionary spending cease (the majority of funding is non discretionary). Only a minority of federal government functions stop. For most people the only thing they see is that national parks stop being staffed a couple weeks.

We do not need the federal government to solve all problems of society, as that is not its job. Sure people hate congress, but if you created a new system they would hate that too. People will always hate the government here.

Sure there is room for improvement but actually a lot of bills still get passed and again we do not need the government meddling in everything anyways.

[Duvniask]

Sure, having the federal government functions suspended is no big deal. It's not like this impacts millions of people, even in the short term.


It also doesn't really matter to my point, because people obviously want a government (and I'm including Congress, the legislative branch, here too) that isn't constantly at an impasse and can actually carry out political goals. If it cannot do that, it becomes ineffective and cannot respond to any of the problems faced by society. Political paralysis is not good, hombre, because people actually want things to change for the better, no matter what their view of "better" is; and as things stand, the current alignment satisfies barely anyone: people hate Congress.

No we don't. We want government to stay out of our lives unless it is necessary to intrude.

And folks have hated congress since congress has been in existence.

Translation: you don't want government out of your lives.

Seriously, the size of government is a non-sequitur in this conversation. Whatever aspects of life you think are "necessary to intrude" upon, those are certainly aspects you would like to actually be carried out, and not be undermined by political paralysis, unless you're some strange sort of accelerationist that just wants the stack of cards to come falling down and the world to go to hell.