Talk me down: I'm ready for a constitutional amendment to abolish the Senate.

[Kitsune]

I understand the purpose that the Senate is supposed to play in the American system of government, and at one point it may have even been a good idea, but in the modern era (and especially in the last few years) we've come to a new status quo in which one party will filibuster absolutely every single bill that the chamber takes up that they didn't exclusively write. The way the Senate works, they will essentially always have enough senators to do this. Sixty senators is an almost unprecedented balance in the modern Senate, and yet thanks to a fifth column in the Democratic ranks, the GOP is still able to utterly wreck the Senate's ability to function. We aren't going to pick up more senators in 2010. They way they've been acting, we'll be lucky not to LOSE several.

And I don't see this problem getting better, short the complete dissolution of the GOP and the Democrats finally advertising themselves as a conservative party while the left they love to ignore goes Green or something (I don't think this is especially likely, either). And so I wonder if the only way to fix the problem is to completely get rid of the Senate. I can't recall the last time the Senate Dems came through for America in a big way, though I'm sure others will point them out (and it's sort of why I started this thread), and the Republicans are only too happy to use it to completely derail anything short of a fascist agenda.

I'm sure someone will bring up the "but it keeps the small states represented" issue. I don't have a problem with the low-population states getting less representation, since the current degree of representation they enjoy is able to completely destroy the function of the American government. If they want to increase their population, they can merge into bigger states. North and South Dakota can just be Dakota, with a whole lot more population than both of them combined. Problem solved.

So... how am I wrong?

[cali]

1. All I'm gonna bring up is how silly your OP is

It's pointless to discuss something that has no chance of happening. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Zip.

[Kitsune]

2. Oh, I know it's not going to happen.

I'm not delusional. But it's hardly the least likely thing that's been proposed or discussed on this forum.

[Goldstein1984]

5. I just took it as blowing off a little steam...

It could still generate an interesting exchange about how the people might find ways to force reform.

Think constructively

[Kitsune]

8. Oh, my, yes, there's plenty of steam here that needs blown off.

It's like every day I think I can't get any more infuriated at the crooks (on both sides of the aisle), and every day I am proven wrong. At some point my head is probably going to explode a la Scanners.

[divideetimpera]

20. it could be done via starving the fed govt

see my post near the bottom of this thread for more detail

[Goldstein1984]

3. Probably easier to reform the senate

Of course, that means the people doing something nonviolent yet dramatic to get their attention.

Can you imagine getting the Senate to approve a constitutional amendment to abolish the Senate?

[Kitsune]

6. I can't even imagine the Senate voting to reform itself.

I think we've found a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than Mos Eisley.

[divideetimpera]

22. starve the beast

take away Washington DC's budget. Send power back to the states. See my posts below for more info.

[Ken Burch]

18. Tie it to a pay raise. Maybe they wouldn't notice.

n/t.

[bridgit]

4. The senate is the throttle on the people's house such as *it* is

[Goldstein1984]

7. Right now it doesn't look like a throttle, it looks like a...

potato in the exhaust pipe.

The people need to get the attention of their representatives, or this is no democracy.

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. The Senate is a remnant of 18th century thought

They act like the old House of Lords back in the early 1800s
with the same powers, titles, wealth and privileges but now its corporate
with the exceptions of a few senators.

It took the English Civil Wars of the 1640s and the reform bill of the 1830s to get rid of its power.

The US will not diminish the Senate's powers in the foreseeable future
because it is not a parliamentary system but a federalist system


States have to be treated equally, or else the little ones will lose out. But who cares if they lose out? States don't vote. People do!


in Thomas Geoghegan's 1998 book, The Secret Lives of Citizens. Because each state is granted equal representation in the Senate regardless of population, Geoghegan writes, "a man who might own a gas station in Idaho might have more say in foreign policy than the whole Trilateral Commission."

Mindful that a filibuster can only be stopped by a vote of three-fifths of the Senate, Geoghegan calculates that 41 senators representing about 10 percent of the population can block a bill favored by 60 senators representing about 90 percent of the population.

A 90 percent majority in favor still doesn't guarantee that a law can be passed! OK, so we'll get rid of the filibuster. Given the practical difficulties of abolishing the Senate, that's a respectable fallback position. But even if the filibuster were scuttled, Geoghegan figures, 50 senators representing the 25 smallest states, and hence a mere 16 percent of the population, could still block passage of a bill favored by the other 84 percent of the population.

(Assuming, of course, the tie-breaking vice president abstained or went along with the naysayers; with 50 senators, the vice president wouldn't be a factor.) Similarly, he points out, 51 senators representing "16 percent and a bit more" could pass any bill they wished, even if 84 percent of the population opposed it. (Of course, the president, who has veto power, would have to favor the bill, too.)

Howie Hawkins, a Green Party USA candidate for Congress in New York, has slightly different numbers--the way he's figured it, 20 percent of the population, acting through its senators, can block legislation favored by 80 percent of the population--but the point remains the same.


Nebraska, the only state in the United States that has a unicameral legislature, can hardly be described as a hotbed of radicalism. Jesse Ventura wants the same thing in Minnesota. Why can't we have one in Washington, too?


In addition to being more democratic, it would also be loads more efficient. No conference committees! No duplicative hearings! And think of the office space you'd save on Capitol Hill!

[slackmaster]

9. Good luck getting 38 state legislatures to sign up for that

:hi:

[Skink]

10. After Nero you'd think something drastic might happen.

:yoiks:

[rateyes]

11. The Constitution was already amended to have the people vote for the Senators.

We should go back to the state legislatures picking the states' Senators.

[Goldstein1984]

12. Or we could amend the Constitution again to say...

"Once elected by the people, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives or U.S. Senate may not be purchased."

[JCMach1]

14. Me too... let's turn the house into a full-blown parliament.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. I heard a different way to deal with the filibuster

On successive votes for cloture, chop the requirement for cloture by three votes. That way, there's no more than four votes for cloture (with debate in between) until the last one, requiring only 51 votes. That way, it can still be a tool for slowing legislation, but it can't ultimately frustrate the will of the determined majority.

[divideetimpera]

21. why would you want to slow legislation anyway?

either you have democracy, where the will of the people is implemented, with all due speed, or you have pseudo-democracy, where the will of the people is thwarted and instead the will of the wealthy prevails. You choose.

[WillowTree]

26. And you'll still be in favor of that when the Republicans are in the majority? Really?

[bamacrat]

16. Im for it. We have representatives that are determined by population.

The Senate gives a state like Kansas, Arkansas the Dakotas or Montana the same leverage as California, New York and Texas. It doesnt make much sense, since those 5 states has as many people in them as ONE city in any of the three states I listed. So even though a majority of people want something a few get to deny it. Almost half the people in this country (135,000,000) live in Houston, NYC, and LA yet 3,000,000 get to control everything we want to do. In a democracy majority should rule. The public often times are years ahead of the politicians.

[divideetimpera]

17. This is such an encouraging thread that I could not resist registering to post

OK, it is SO GOOD to see that you guys on DU are finally starting to catch on to what real politics is all about.
Real politics is mainly about the structure of your govt. Everything else is practically just window dressing.

The reason that america does not have the social welfare state (e.g., national healthcare etc) that the other western nations have is that we do not have a parliamentarian form of govt, and they do.

We have a strong checks and balances federalist republic with a showstopper senate and judiciary.

The founding fathers and in particular james madison wrote about why they wanted this particular form of govt. They wrote about this in the federalist papers, madison's notes from the constitutional convention and in a letter to jefferson from madison.

Here is a basic summary of what they said:
They did not want democracy. In fact the primary reason the founding fathers installed our present constitution was that under the articles of confederation, the people were beginning to assert their will because under the articles of confederation, some of the several states were developing parliamentarian demcracies. That meant that the majority of working class citizens in those states were raising taxes on the rich and were allowing debt relief for people who were broke. The founding fathers, being rich, did not like that. So Madison created a type of govt that would give the appearance of democracy, but that in practice would prevent the will of the people from being exerted via the vote.

You at DU have begun to see this in the healthcare debate. The senate is thwarting the will of the people--JUST AS IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO BY ITS INVENTOR, JAMES MADISON!

Let me tell you what madison said was the primary purpose of his new constitution: to preserve wealth inequality, to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," in his words. In fact, in that same paragraph he wrote that the Senate was the primary way that his constitution would achieve that goal.

Madison's new gov't would fragment the will of the people by increasing faction by increasing the size of the voting districts that elected politicians. He noted that politicians from small voting districts had to more or less follow the will of the people because in small districts the people were more able to "unite and discover their common interest" and thus force the politicians to do as the people wanted.

In larger districts that would be created under his new constitution (e.g., the office of the president and the senate), the districts were so large that there naturally existed more FACTIONS in these larger districts. More factions meant that the people were more diviided and could not thus unite and discover their common intererst and thereby make the politicians obey the will of the people.

Large districts like the entire nation (the president) and each state (the senate) were so fragmented by the factions in them that the voters would be divided and not united.

Divide et impera, wrote madison to jefferson, was how the USA should be ruled. Divide and conquer by fragment the people by increasing the number of factions in voting districts.

Madison and founding fathers created factions in voting districts by enlarging them.

In the quasi-parliamentarian governments that were growing under the articles of confederation before 1791 when the new constitution was installed, the politicians were elected from small disticts. Small meaning fewer factions and therefore more unity among voters.

THat is the secret of all the other western nations. THey are small and have parliamentarian govts. The real power in every other western nation (excepting france, to some degree) rests in the lower house, where the politicians are all elected from small districts. The upper house (if there even is one) is powerless to stop the will of the lower house. And the prime minister actually serves at the behest and is controlled and elected by the lower house. All the real power is vested in those politicians elected from small (and relatively faction-free) voting districts. That is democracy, which is something we in america do not really have. Not since the founding fathers succeeded in their counterrevolution which culminated in their replacing the articles of confederation with the present federalist constitution.

If you want real national healthcare, you have to have more democracy. In order to get more democracy, you have to have more unity among voters. In order to get more unity, you have to have fewer factions. In order to get fewer factions, you have to have smaller voting districts. In order to get smaller voting districts, you have to get rid of the office of the president and you have to get rid of the senate. And you have to make the lower house districts smaller. How do you do that?

De-federalize.

In other words, send power back to the states. There is really only one way to do it--starve the federal govt and get rid of the IRS. Send all taxing power back to the states. One plank of the rightwing is to do just that. Of course it is all talk. The GOP elected politicians would never do it. Red meat for their base, but they would never do it. Because that would increase democracy, and well, the people would then do things like, ah, implement single payer healthcare, which is something the people want, but the politicians (and their big donors) do not want.

Very encouraging to see this thread here, though. Though I would never see it. So, it's a good day for me.

Carry the message far and wide!

For more on this, see Dr Woody Holton's books and essays (google his name and the phrase "excess of democracy").

[SoCalDem]

19. 75 % ratification prety much means that NO more amendments will pass

ever again..

We are not a cohesive nation anymore

The stage was set too many years ago when those small-population states' senators figured out they could control the agenda by obstructing and by banding together with other small population states..

They will never give up their power..

[Initech]

23. We should just go to using the House Of Representin' from Idiocracy.

"Yo South Carolina wassup???????"

[kctim]

24. It prevents a majority rule type democracy

Take into account that the people of North or South Dakota do not need to nor want to live like the people of LA or NY and this would not be such a big deal to you.

You do not need to destroy the funtion of the American govt by passing a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Senate, you can get your way by just getting 2/3 to agree with you.

[divideetimpera]

25. choose one or the other

either you have democracy where the majority rule or you can have a pseudo-democracy where the rich and powerful rule.

[kctim]

27. I choose neither

and will opt to keep the representative one we have now. 51% dictating how everybody lives does not work well and we are not ruled by the rich and powerful.

[divideetimpera]

28. You say we are not ruled by the rich and powerful?

I offer as Exhibit A the fact that we do not have, and apparently will not have, decent national healthcare. I offer as Exhibit B our out of control war machine. I offer as Exhibit C our regressive tax system. I offer as Exhibit D our poor social welfare state.

THe USA was set up to allow the rich and powerful to control us. See my posts above.

[lonestarnot]

29. Shit too late to Rec!

:kick: