Government modernization...Why does the US need a Senate now?

[leftofthedial]

It made sense to have a fossilized deliberative "house of lords" back in the late 1700s and early 1800s, but now they just ensure that our country remains backward. A few toothless geezer traitors can effectively destroy the entire country in order to enrich themselves and their cronies.

Should we be pursuing constitutional changes to abolish the Senate, or to replace it with a more modern body? Should we not also abolish the electoral college while we're at it? It's only purpose is to maintain the status quo.

[Esra Star]

1. Keep the senate, depoliticise the Presidency. nt

[leftstreet]

2. The whole "3 branches checks and balances" is a sham n/t

[Warpy]

6. It is these days of zealots and viciously partisan GOPs.

In ordinary days when one of the parties hadn't been taken over by lunatics it worked very, very well. Presidential excess was checked by Congress and legislative excess was checked by the USSC.

[leftstreet]

7. A pox on the branch that decided corporations are people, too!

[Warpy]

9. That was actually written by a CLERK

and not even by a Justice, himself.

It's the stupidest idea ever and should be rescinded.

Cartels of businessmen are separate and equal human beings? Rubbish.

[hack89]

38. No zealots and partisans in the Democratic pary?

expecting a unicorn for Christmas are we?

[Warpy]

3. Senators are supposed to represent the interests of their states,

themselves, and not the people who live inside those states.

It's an important distinction and explains why senators used be chosen by state legislatures and even now, vacant seats in most states are filled by governors. It explains why the Senate ratifies all treaties.

The House directly represents the interests of the people who elected it.

Well, it's supposed to.

A modernization might be to specify legislation which could be the sole responsibility of each house separately, much the way treaties are ratified and Cabinet and USSC nominees approved solely by the Senate.

The Electoral College is an anti democratic anachronism. It should first be made proportional and then phased out unless disaster dictates a return to horse and buggy days.

[glowing]

4. I think one of our biggest problems is the two party system. We have one

United States. And party loyalty can destroy the United States. Perhaps the idea of states has come to an end.. or perhaps we need a regional branch of govt. There is such inequality between states rights in our own country.. laws, fees, taxes, etc. I think the idea of running such differing bodies within the frame of a Unified whole body is destroying us. It pits states and regions against one another. It disperses tax and incentive among those in power.. For a long time PUGs were in charge.. hence the more money sent into those states from the whole of tax revenue. Now, that the Dems are in charge, the south will probably become even more backwards and receive less funds... even though, the people living in those states need more help. I think there needs to be a restructuring. I think the idea of states and parties fighting for different ideals undermines the greater good of the whole.

[DJ13]

5. Eliminate Congress and all thats left is a King

[leftofthedial]

11. I did not suggest eliminating Congress

First, I didn't mention the House. Second, I suggested replacing the Senate with a more modern body.

[gravity]

8. Senators are Democratically elected

I don't see a problem with it except it isn't represented proportionally to the population, but I don't think you can come up with a much better alternative.

[Donnachaidh]

10. what we need to do is kick the WEALTHY out of the Senate

If you make over 250K per year you are disqualified from running for office.

The class warfare has been empowered by the wealthy in the government. Kick THEM out, and put representatives in that TRULY represent their constituents.

[mondo joe]

13. Pretty funny, considering your avatar. NT

[Donnachaidh]

18. not at all, considering the New Deal.

Show me ONE wealthy person in Congress today that has the CAJONES to do what HE did for the common man.

[mondo joe]

19. His wealth did not impede him.

I'm not ready to value or judge individuals by their income.

[karynnj]

45. Kennedy and Kerry have been two of the many who have worked for the poor

Neither could do what FDR did. FDR was President in an extraordinary time when measures that in other times would not fly flew. When the majority of Americans felt some fear of their future economic situation - all the safety net legislation was possible.

Though I feel no need to list the MA Senators' accomplishments that make this a true statement, here are a few things to consider. Kennedy has had a hand in nearly every liberal piece of legislation since the early 60s, the civil rights legislation and Medicare are two examples. In the 1990s, Kerry and Kennedy wrote a bill that a year later Kennedy and Hatch revised as S-CHIP(making it not an entitlement and giving control of the design of individual programs to the states) to get sufficient votes - Kerry and Dodd were the original co-sponsors. Kerry also has been the Senate sponsor of Youthbuild, a organization that helps underprivileged youth gain job skills while they are helped to finish high school. Kerry also was the Senator who sponsored legislation for an Affordable Housing fund, reintroducing legislation in different Congresses since 2000 - it was accepted into the Banking Committee's bill this year.

[cali]

36. that's utterly ridiculous

Yeah, Teddy Kennedy should never have been allowed in the Senate. And I say that as one of the few people who is represented in the Senate by 2 people who are not millionaires.

[karynnj]

44. That would be ridiculous

It also would have eliminated people you were strongest for including your avatar, who likely earned that much from his assets, and John Edwards, who amassed a fortune of nearly $30 million from disclosures made.

Also, what do you do if, like Obama, they didn't make $250,000 before they entered, but then made millions because of an excellent book he wrote? Hillary Clinton is an another example. Do Bill's and Michelle's income count? If so, should John Kerry who met your criterion for all of most of life (he might have made more in the 2 years where he was a trial lawyer - but was making less as LT Gov, Senator and before that prosecutor) have had to resign the moment he married Teresa Heinz?

[laconicsax]

12. You're joking, right?

Did you not learn this in grade school? The Connecticut Compromise?

The legislature has two houses, one that's supposed to represent the people proportionately, the other that's supposed to represent each state equally. Abolishing the senate would give the biggest states the most influence. Smaller states would effectively have no voice in congress.

[leftofthedial]

21. I understand the history

but the senate has become nothing more than a house of lords, wealthy elitists obstructing all change.

[laconicsax]

24. Then you don't understand the history.

The Senate was always intended to be insulated from fickle public opinion--a balance against the House's intended representation of public opinion. It's been that way for nearly 220 years.

[leftofthedial]

26. I think this is a case not of me not understanding the history,

but rather you not understanding the present.

[laconicsax]

27. Yes, let's completely overhaul our government because it isn't hip to the times!

That's the best solution to the problem of the Senate Majority Leader being a spineless coward and letting a few members of the minority party set the agenda.

:eyes:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

35. Ya, sorry.

I don't really feel we ought to invent or destroy basic governmental constructs in order to fit with "the times" because you happen to dislike the current leadership of the particular construct. Good luck with that.

[backscatter712]

14. Make the .gov more parliamentarian.

Specifically, implement rules where voters vote for the political party, not individual candidates, and allocate each party seats in the legislature proportional to the number of votes. If my memory of .gov game theory is correct, we'll end up with a conservative party (the GOP), a center-left party (the Democrats) and a small very liberal party (the Greens) plus a smattering of small fringe parties. Typically, the center-left and the far-left party form the center of the coalition.

Also implement a mechanism for a vote of no-confidence so bad governments can be thrown out early and new elections held.

[backscatter712]

15. Oh, another game-theory observation:

While the House of Representatives was intended to be more directly the "people's house" and designed to quickly bend to the whims of the voters, and the Senate with its longer terms and initially non-directly-elected Senators representing the will of the states rather than the people directly; reality has turned things backwards.

Thanks to gerrymandering, the House of Reps has a large number of safe Democratic and Republican districts, which change hands very seldomly, so the House is far more static than the Founding Fathers had in mind. At the same time, because you can't gerrymander state borders easily, and because Senators are directly elected by the people today, the Senate tends to easily sway to the whims of the populace.

[anonymous171]

16. I'm sure you would change your tune if the GOP controlled the house and not the senate.

[leftofthedial]

22. you would be wrong.

the GOP does not control the Senate.

I think the Senate has ill-served the interests of the country pretty consistently for at least the last 30 years.

[Thothmes]

25. No for the last 45 yers

[sofa king]

17. To protect us from the Bushes of the world.

Say what you like about today's Senate, but if you ask me we still have what little we have left because the Democratic minority in the Senate was able to hold off the other two-and-a-half branches of the federal government for four long years. They saved your Social Security, and they saved us from countless other disasters-in-the-making and terrible ideas. And they did it through the annoying process of delay and deliberation.

Now we have to endure the annoyance of a Republican minority fighting us every step of the way. So be it.

The mechanism is still at work, whether or not it's working to the specs of some of our readers. The GOP is gnashing its teeth for another two weeks, and then they're gonna pay for it. I guarantee you they'll change their habits when the new Congress convenes in early January, partly because they will have to and partly because at least some of them will realize that they are at most three Senate seats away from total, perhaps permanent defeat.

[Skip Intro]

20. You can't be serious.nt

[leftofthedial]

23. Yes I Can!nt

[Skip Intro]

29. lol

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

28. The senate kept the rabid itjits of the Gingrich Revolution in check.

It serves a purpose. It is there for a reason.

[leftofthedial]

30. I think we need a second house of the legislature.

I don't think the current body, with it's current wealthy "overlord" makeup and it's absurd rules, serves anyone'sinterest.

[Selatius]

31. I believe it should be reformed first before being abolished, namely...

that elections for senators should require a majority to win the seat, not a simple plurality. If that were the case, Al Franken would have won hands down easily, and at less cost than currently is in the form of recounts, legal challenges, etc. Abolition of the Electoral College should be considered as well. The advantages given to smaller states with the presence of the US Senate is more than enough without the Electoral College. The president should win by majority vote; if no one can get a majority in the first round, then the second round is needed between the top two candidates, much like in France.

I fully realize the mathematical disparities that small states are afforded in relation to big states, but I'd say if you're going to abolish or change the fundamental nature of the Senate, you might as well dissolve the US into several constituent countries. At least that way, the citizens in these respective nations would have a government that is more under their direct control than the current framework.

[Odin2005]

32. The Senate is what allows red states to steal tax money money from blue states.

There are too many powerful senators from rural and southern states that waste the people's money on pork in their states. They are also the reason that most of the military bases are in the South.

I say switch to a German-style parliamentary system. Germany is even a Federal Republic, like us.

[Thothmes]

39. And powerful senators from Western and Northern states have never

wasted any of the people's money on pork for their states? BS.

[Odin2005]

40. I never said that they didn't.

I should know, I live right across the Red River from North Dakota, a population of less then a million yet has two powerful Dem senators with lots of seniority and clout. What I meant was that the Senate gives disproportionate power to rural, thinly populated states as well as the South, which reflects in where federal money gos on a state-to-state basis.

[anigbrowl]

33. I like having a bicameral legislature

It slows things down a bit but that's not always a bad thing.

[zagging]

34. To start with...

1st, repeal the 17th amendment and get the Senate back into the hands of the states where it belongs.

2nd, convert the Capitol dome into a national museum, build a massive auditorium that will hold up to 10,000 representatives, and allow no representative to represent more than 30,000 people as was originally set forth.

By doing these two things, lobbying money and special interests will become far less influential, even impotent, and the power of the people and each state as sovereign will be restored.

[cali]

37. lol. ridiculous and pointless post.

The Senate is not about to be abolished There's just about a zero chance of that happening. What a silly waste of time posts like yours are.

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. Imagine what Bush could have accomplished if there had been no Senate

[Bill McBlueState]

42. the reaction to your post is disappointing

About half of the responses don't even argue the merits of your plan; instead, they're blanket condemnations of any attempt to rethink decisions made over 200 years ago.

[Bill McBlueState]

43. Proportional representation, but keep the 6-year staggered terms

I realize we're only talking theoretically here; there's never going to be a constitutional amendment to change the Senate.

It should have proportional representation, so people from barely populated states can't overrule the needs of everyone else. But there should still be six-year staggered terms, so the body is less susceptible to the changing political winds than the House.

We should also ditch the Electoral College. When the country was founded, there were good reasons to give the smaller states more influence than their populations warranted. But times have changed. For one thing, the disparity in population between the largest and smallest states is greater than the Founders likely envisioned. The practice of carving rectangles out of nearly unpopulated chunks of the continent is not likely something they had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.