Should the US get rid of the Senate?

[US-SSR]

California, with nearly 12% of the US population, has 2 Senators.
The 21 least-populated states, with barely more than 11% of the US population, have 42 Senators.

California and Texas have over 1/5 of the US population and 4 Senators.
The 28 least-populated states have less than 1/5 of the US population and 56 Senators.

California, Texas and New York have more than 1/4 of the US population and 6 Senators.
The 31 least-populated states have less than 1/4 of the US population and 62 Senators.

California, Texas, New York and Florida have over 100m people and 8 Senators.
The 35 least-populated states have not quite 2m more people and 70 Senators.

States accounting for less than 17% of the US population have a majority of Senators.
States accounting for less than 1/4 of the US population have a 3/5 majority of Senators.
States accounting for less than 30% of the US population have a 2/3 majority of Senators.

This demographic imbalance is imo unacceptable in a democracy. It's time for the Senate to go. If we must have an Upper House, give every state a minimum number of Senators and add more to the big states. I'd say California should have at least 2/3 of the Senators that the 21 least populated states have, or 28 Senators.

The only arguments for keeping the Senate as it is are "we've always done it that way," "it's in the Constitution" or even worse "the US is not a democracy, it's a republic." So is Russia. So is North Korea. All a "republic" is is a nation without an actual monarch.

The Electoral College, that other undemocratic remnant of America's enslaving past, expressly designed to give the most reationary elements in society an outsized voice in selecting the chief executive, has proved itself unable to keep incompetent buffoons with ties to foreign adversaries out of the White House. The Senate, with a "majority" unrepresentative of the actual majority of the population, is now obstructing much-needed aid in the middle of the worst global pandemic in a century. Both "institutions" are proving to be about as useful to the nation as tits are to a tomcat. It's time for both to go.

The UK has gutted the House of Lords; we putative antimonarchists are behind the curve.

Can anyone younger than the Founders come up with a reality-based reason to keep the 2 Senators per state arrangement into the foreseeable future? I'll listen. but don't bet you can convince me.

[Otira]

I don't believe so.

Maybe if it was a different country.

[Rusozak]

But that's impossible. How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?

[North American Imperial State]

Probs not no

FYI, The House of Lords in the UK still holds power, abit less then it did years ago.

[Otira]

But that's impossible. How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?

The state governors will have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local counties in line. Fear of this battle station pandemic orange-man battlestation.

[North American Imperial State]

But that's impossible. How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?

The state governors will have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local counties in line. Fear of this battle station pandemic orange-man battlestation.

[The Two Jerseys]

Only if secession becomes legal.

[Washington Resistance Army]

No, and popular election of senators should be repealed.

[Asardia]

I mean, that's sort of the point. The House goes by population, while the Senate is fixed at 2. This was a debate during the constitutional convention, but I think the smaller states have a point: They will get overshadowed by the larger ones if both houses were apportioned according to population. The electoral college should be removed, now that I agree with. However, the Senate provides a good balance to tyranny by the majority

[Thermodolia]

This is yet again another stupid thread by the OP

The senate is designed to be a place where the states have equal say. If anything should be done we should be increasing the amount of senators from 2 to 5 and electing them by STV

[Otira]

popular election of senators should be repealed.

Could you expand on this? Very curious.

[Asardia]

No, and popular election of senators should be repealed.

Hmmm. That's an interesting statement. Can you elaborate? I personally feel the government should represent the people. Therefore, the people should vote on who they want. I apply the same logic for removing the Electoral College.

[Thermodolia]

popular election of senators should be repealed.

Could you expand on this? Very curious.

Prior to the 17th amendment senators where chosen by their state governments and not by the people

[Washington Resistance Army]

popular election of senators should be repealed.

Could you expand on this? Very curious.

It makes the Senate largely meaningless as a body and only serves to further obfuscate and make difficult the legislative process for the common person to understand. Senators should be appointed by state governments to represent their interests in DC while people vote for and work through their representatives.

[Neutraligon]

I mean, the entire point of the senate is that each state has the same number of representatives,that way smaller states do not get overwhelmed.

[Bienenhalde]

No, and popular election of senators should be repealed.

Exactly. I agree.

[Major-Tom]

No, but make it more proportional.

[The Two Jerseys]

No, but make it more proportional.

Would probably need more seats for that.

I say 3 senators per state, party gets one seat for every 25% of the vote they get.

[US-SSR]

I mean, that's sort of the point. The House goes by population, while the Senate is fixed at 2. This was a debate during the constitutional convention, but I think the smaller states have a point: They will get overshadowed by the larger ones if both houses were apportioned according to population. The electoral college should be removed, now that I agree with. However, the Senate provides a good balance to tyranny by the majority

By what right should smaller states have, not the same, but wildly disproporationate representation in a legislative body compared to larger ones? Just because that's how it's always been done? And if a clear majority of the population favors, say, universal health care or highly restrictive immigration, how is preventing that from happening combatting tyrrany?

[Sundiata]

No, a bicameral legislature is a solid means of preventing corruption.

For example, China has a unicameral legislature.

[Dresderstan]

No, but make it more proportional.

Would probably need more seats for that.

I say 3 senators per state, party gets one seat for every 25% of the vote they get.

Nah make it 5 senators per state and make it IRV voting. While were at it up the House and make it PR too.

[Columbia and America]

Have you ever heard of the house of representatives?

[US-SSR]

Have you ever heard of the house of representatives?

Why no, do go on.

[Loben III]

why to miss the point of the senate.

[Vadterland]

I can guess you only really care about removing the Senate because it's dominated by the Republicans. Just like how people like you were railing against the Electoral College not so long ago because it managed to give them the victory this time around.