The Senate was never designed to be proportionate to a state’s population. The House was.
It’s fine to be against the idea of the Senate, but you should at least make sure you understand why it was created in the first place. That is, to create a union of states where each one has a certain level of autonomy.
The Senate is meant to represent each state’s individual interests in a national legislature.
Sometimes the interests of a local municipality don’t perfectly align with the interests of a state writ large. Which is why we have two houses: one to represent each state, and one that’s proportionate to population and represents the districts within a state.
The real issue, in my opinion, is the Reapportionment Act of 1929 that put a hard cap on the number of members of the House of Representatives at 435 seats.
It was created because the founders didn’t trust democracy. Shay’s Rebellion had them nervous about too much democracy taking wealth from the ruling class.
you should at least make sure you understand why it was created in the first place. That is, to create a union of states where each one has a certain level of autonomy.
The Senate is meant to represent each state’s individual interests in a national legislature.
…
The real issue, in my opinion, is the Reapportionment Act of 1929 that put a hard cap on the number of members of the House of Representatives at 435 seats.
IMO the real reason the Senate is broken is the 17th Amendment (having Senators be directly elected by popular vote instead of chosen by state legislatures). That’s the point when it ceased to be fit for its original purpose (representing the State as its own entity in a way materially different from the House, maximising separation of powers) and should’ve just been abolished entirely instead.
I agree with you that the House is broken by the Reapportionment Act because there are just too damn many constituents per legislator, but that issue is separate from what’s wrong with the Senate.
but that issue is separate from what’s wrong with the Senate.
I’m not sure that it is. We have a bicameral legislature, you can’t really separate them completely. Together they are “Congress”.
I think the Senate would be fine as it is if we actually had a proportionate House of Reps.
And maybe the Senate shouldn’t be the “upper house” as I think “The People’s House” (in this scenario, actually proportionate) should be considered more important.
But I think calling for the abolishment of the Senate entirely is misguided. I like the idea of a federation of states, each with a degree of autonomy. And given the nature of the US being a nation of immigrants (and it’s sheer size), I think it fits our culture very well.
If you want to see the US without the Senate, watch The Hunger Games. It’s called “Panem”.
12 numbered districts whose collective population is a minority of the total, controlled from afar by a single district comprising the majority. Whatever that distant, popular majority wants, it commands the minority districts to provide.
The solution to the inequities in Panem is a Senate with the power to veto the whims of the Capitol district.
Myth. The House vetos the minority from controlling the majority. That’s the purpose of the House.
Veto powers should be limited to that which directly impacts each state materially, not simply everything including things happening afar
If the majority wants to enact something without the consent of the Senate, they are free to enact it at the state level: For themselves, rather than imposed against a minority populace that would reject it for themselves.
If that is not a viable option, then the federal government has too much power and needs to be reined in.
if the majority wants to enact something without the consent of the Senate, they are free to enact it at the state level
Then the veto should not apply to (more than a representative percent of) federal budgets. A shared project which states want to coordinate should not be vetoable by non-participants.
If that can still be vetoed then the vetoing states have too much power and must be reined in
A shared project which states want to coordinate should not be vetoable by non-participants.
Rejected. Individual states are free to establish contractual arrangements with eachother. They can create and fund joint commissions for such shared projects.
Where these “shared projects” are conducted and controlled by the federal government, there are no “non-participant” states. As participants in the federal government, these states have an interest in the budget of that government.
Real life math from real countries says you’re wrong. The federal government is that contract between states and those smaller states are generally net receivers, not payers, so when they veto projects not dependent on them for anything and which don’t cost them anything, your entire argument is dead in the water.
You do not have a legitimate interest in that the budget is prevented from building good things like infrastructure for states who due to regulations and state plus federal law must use the federal government for coordination.
The option is of course that the big states stop funding the feds, this directly harms the small states as they used to be net receivers of funds, and now the fed is only a paper entity that does nothing. If the small states veto self funded projects by large states which gets managed federally, they deserve this outcome.
The federal government is that contract between states
The federal government is a contract between 50 states. You are envisioning a shared project in which the people in a majority of those states reject the project. You are envisioning a project wherein the people of a minority of those states wish to enact this project against the will of the people of a majority of states.
Your argument is that this minority of states will be funding this project anyway, so the majority of states have no interest in stopping the project.
What I am saying is that you don’t need the 50-state contract to proceed with this project. The 10 states that think it is a good idea can establish a joint commission to enact the project without ever consulting or otherwise involving the remaining 40 states.
The federal government is a contract, not the contract. Establish a different contract between the specific states that support your project, and stop trying to impose your little project on people who don’t want it.
those smaller states are generally net receivers, not payers, so when they veto projects not dependent on them for anything and which don’t cost them anything, your entire argument is dead in the water.
Rejected.
Consider a classic, 1950’s family. Husband, wife, 2.5 kids. He is the sole breadwinner; she is a stay-at-home wife and mother. She is a “net receiver” of the family’s money; he is the “net payer”. He is the sole economic contributor to their joint checking account.
If we apply your argument, she has no valid interest in determining how that money should be budgeted. He should be fully empowered to reject her opinions on how the money should be spent. The decision to squander their joint finances at the bar or dog track is his, and his alone.
Obviously, this is abusive. She contributes considerably to the family, yet her contributions are devalued and her needs ignored. She is deemed some sort of nagging buzzkill rather than an actual partner.
The abusiveness of this relationship doesn’t change when we shift from this small family to a 50-state polycule. What does change is that the “breadwinner” states are free to establish a separate, joint commission with each other, separate and apart from their federal obligations. A handful of “breadwinner” states are actually free to engage in their shared project, without involving or consulting the “housewife” states. So long as they don’t touch the “joint checking account” that is the federal government, they are free to use their own money in any way they want.
Lmao you do know there are many other forms of democratic government in the world that aren’t the USA right? You don’t have to resort to ham-fisted YA fantasy.
Also I need to confirm with you: you know the hunger games is fiction and not real life, right?
Fiction widens the contrast, bringing the problem into stark relief. It makes the pattern easily recognizable, so more subtle intrusions don’t go overlooked.
There are, indeed, many other forms of democratic government in the world that aren’t the USA. Some better. Many far, far worse. The best have strong factors differentiating them from simplistic, populist governance.
The Senate made more sense when the US was less centralized and different states were like different countries and there weren’t a bunch of states populated by 100 cows for every person.
In the modern era, it’s a simple tyranny of the minority. Wyoming has like 500,000 people, but those 500,000 have the exact same power in the more important chamber of Congress than do the 40,000,000 of California or the 30,000,000 of Texas.
If we take it to an extreme, imagine if there were only two states in the Union. Hawaii and the entire Continental US. Would we share equal power with Hawaii? Of course not.
If we’re really married to the idea, there should be a requirement for roughly equal population by state, and let’s be honest, we have that with House districts and they gerrymander it. (We should also move to proportional representation to fix that.)
We should also move to proportional representation to fix that.
Nailed it. Gerrymandering is impossible to fix so long as we rely on geographical districts. In a state with 20 districts, 45% voting Democrat, 45% voting Republican, 5% voting Pirate, and 5% voting Ninja, we should have a congressional delegation of 1 Ninja, 1 Pirate, 9 Democrats, and 9 Republicans. Instead, we get 12 Republicans, 8 Democrats, no ninjas, and no pirates.
The Senate was never designed to be proportionate to a state’s population. The House was.
It’s fine to be against the idea of the Senate, but you should at least make sure you understand why it was created in the first place. That is, to create a union of states where each one has a certain level of autonomy.
The Senate is meant to represent each state’s individual interests in a national legislature.
Sometimes the interests of a local municipality don’t perfectly align with the interests of a state writ large. Which is why we have two houses: one to represent each state, and one that’s proportionate to population and represents the districts within a state.
The real issue, in my opinion, is the Reapportionment Act of 1929 that put a hard cap on the number of members of the House of Representatives at 435 seats.
It was created because the founders didn’t trust democracy. Shay’s Rebellion had them nervous about too much democracy taking wealth from the ruling class.
Thanks for saving me the trouble of bringing this up.
IMO the real reason the Senate is broken is the 17th Amendment (having Senators be directly elected by popular vote instead of chosen by state legislatures). That’s the point when it ceased to be fit for its original purpose (representing the State as its own entity in a way materially different from the House, maximising separation of powers) and should’ve just been abolished entirely instead.
I agree with you that the House is broken by the Reapportionment Act because there are just too damn many constituents per legislator, but that issue is separate from what’s wrong with the Senate.
I’m not sure that it is. We have a bicameral legislature, you can’t really separate them completely. Together they are “Congress”.
I think the Senate would be fine as it is if we actually had a proportionate House of Reps.
And maybe the Senate shouldn’t be the “upper house” as I think “The People’s House” (in this scenario, actually proportionate) should be considered more important.
But I think calling for the abolishment of the Senate entirely is misguided. I like the idea of a federation of states, each with a degree of autonomy. And given the nature of the US being a nation of immigrants (and it’s sheer size), I think it fits our culture very well.
The senate has too much veto power, see the entire Biden presidency
The senate was designed to represent capital over people.
If you want to see the US without the Senate, watch The Hunger Games. It’s called “Panem”.
12 numbered districts whose collective population is a minority of the total, controlled from afar by a single district comprising the majority. Whatever that distant, popular majority wants, it commands the minority districts to provide.
The solution to the inequities in Panem is a Senate with the power to veto the whims of the Capitol district.
Instead you let a minority control the majority
Veto powers should be limited to that which directly impacts each state materially, not simply everything including things happening afar
Myth. The House vetos the minority from controlling the majority. That’s the purpose of the House.
If the majority wants to enact something without the consent of the Senate, they are free to enact it at the state level: For themselves, rather than imposed against a minority populace that would reject it for themselves.
If that is not a viable option, then the federal government has too much power and needs to be reined in.
The purpose is not what it is doing anymore.
Then the veto should not apply to (more than a representative percent of) federal budgets. A shared project which states want to coordinate should not be vetoable by non-participants.
If that can still be vetoed then the vetoing states have too much power and must be reined in
Rejected. Individual states are free to establish contractual arrangements with eachother. They can create and fund joint commissions for such shared projects.
Where these “shared projects” are conducted and controlled by the federal government, there are no “non-participant” states. As participants in the federal government, these states have an interest in the budget of that government.
Real life math from real countries says you’re wrong. The federal government is that contract between states and those smaller states are generally net receivers, not payers, so when they veto projects not dependent on them for anything and which don’t cost them anything, your entire argument is dead in the water.
You do not have a legitimate interest in that the budget is prevented from building good things like infrastructure for states who due to regulations and state plus federal law must use the federal government for coordination.
The option is of course that the big states stop funding the feds, this directly harms the small states as they used to be net receivers of funds, and now the fed is only a paper entity that does nothing. If the small states veto self funded projects by large states which gets managed federally, they deserve this outcome.
The federal government is a contract between 50 states. You are envisioning a shared project in which the people in a majority of those states reject the project. You are envisioning a project wherein the people of a minority of those states wish to enact this project against the will of the people of a majority of states.
Your argument is that this minority of states will be funding this project anyway, so the majority of states have no interest in stopping the project.
What I am saying is that you don’t need the 50-state contract to proceed with this project. The 10 states that think it is a good idea can establish a joint commission to enact the project without ever consulting or otherwise involving the remaining 40 states.
The federal government is a contract, not the contract. Establish a different contract between the specific states that support your project, and stop trying to impose your little project on people who don’t want it.
Rejected.
Consider a classic, 1950’s family. Husband, wife, 2.5 kids. He is the sole breadwinner; she is a stay-at-home wife and mother. She is a “net receiver” of the family’s money; he is the “net payer”. He is the sole economic contributor to their joint checking account.
If we apply your argument, she has no valid interest in determining how that money should be budgeted. He should be fully empowered to reject her opinions on how the money should be spent. The decision to squander their joint finances at the bar or dog track is his, and his alone.
Obviously, this is abusive. She contributes considerably to the family, yet her contributions are devalued and her needs ignored. She is deemed some sort of nagging buzzkill rather than an actual partner.
The abusiveness of this relationship doesn’t change when we shift from this small family to a 50-state polycule. What does change is that the “breadwinner” states are free to establish a separate, joint commission with each other, separate and apart from their federal obligations. A handful of “breadwinner” states are actually free to engage in their shared project, without involving or consulting the “housewife” states. So long as they don’t touch the “joint checking account” that is the federal government, they are free to use their own money in any way they want.
Lmao you do know there are many other forms of democratic government in the world that aren’t the USA right? You don’t have to resort to ham-fisted YA fantasy.
Also I need to confirm with you: you know the hunger games is fiction and not real life, right?
Fiction widens the contrast, bringing the problem into stark relief. It makes the pattern easily recognizable, so more subtle intrusions don’t go overlooked.
There are, indeed, many other forms of democratic government in the world that aren’t the USA. Some better. Many far, far worse. The best have strong factors differentiating them from simplistic, populist governance.
Many are worse? My guy, we’ve literally devolved into a fascist dictatorship. How much worse can it get?
The Senate made more sense when the US was less centralized and different states were like different countries and there weren’t a bunch of states populated by 100 cows for every person.
In the modern era, it’s a simple tyranny of the minority. Wyoming has like 500,000 people, but those 500,000 have the exact same power in the more important chamber of Congress than do the 40,000,000 of California or the 30,000,000 of Texas.
If we take it to an extreme, imagine if there were only two states in the Union. Hawaii and the entire Continental US. Would we share equal power with Hawaii? Of course not.
If we’re really married to the idea, there should be a requirement for roughly equal population by state, and let’s be honest, we have that with House districts and they gerrymander it. (We should also move to proportional representation to fix that.)
Nailed it. Gerrymandering is impossible to fix so long as we rely on geographical districts. In a state with 20 districts, 45% voting Democrat, 45% voting Republican, 5% voting Pirate, and 5% voting Ninja, we should have a congressional delegation of 1 Ninja, 1 Pirate, 9 Democrats, and 9 Republicans. Instead, we get 12 Republicans, 8 Democrats, no ninjas, and no pirates.
Nah, the senate represents the state. That’s the problem, always has been.