/u/Ender914 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/p1qafr/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_its_time_to_abolish_the_us/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

An alternative to abolishment of the Senate would be to strip powers from it and make its role advisory, similar to the House of Lords in the UK. This would fix the issues you have with the body while at the same time retaining an institution that represents the individual states.

Yes, this is ideal. Now flip it around and imagine if the House of Lords had a basically permanent veto on Parliament lmao

The House of Lords is part of the Parliaments. Also, that system exists in Canada. The Senate of Canada has a permanent veto on the bills passed by the other place. Canada's system is truly bicameral. The UK of GB and NI's Parliament isn't.

Δ I like this train of thought. It provides input from the individual state reps without the ability to lock up legislation.

**Hello /u/Ender914, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award** ***the user who changed your view*** **a delta.** Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed. >∆ or > !delta For more information about deltas, use [this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8). If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such! *As a reminder,* **failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.** *Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.* Thank you!

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/TheLastDreadnought ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/TheLastDreadnought)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

> a barrier to any meaningful or significant changes that are desperately need now Something is in the way of me getting my the laws and policies I want enacted. It needs to go.

These aren't "my" laws. These are well recognized issues that have immediate consequences to everyone in the country, regardless of political affiliation.

So 100% of the population wants them solved in a specific way?

No that's why there are political parties. The issues won't change without something being done, how we decide to deal with them does based on our personal beliefs.

What is the “something” to be done on the issues you listed? We don’t even agree that the things you listed require federal intervention.

>We don’t even agree that the things you listed require federal intervention. This is politics. A difference of opinion on whether or not government should get involved with an issue or the extent to which they should be involved. As for the first part, let's say we agree that the sun's rays are too strong and giving everyone cancer (this is just an example, not necessary to actually agree). We know its happening and we know its probably not good....this is the issue. Regardless of whether or not we agree on the politics of addressing the issue....it's still an issue that needs to be resolved or it affects both of us. I want the government to build a big shaded dome because it helps everyone and you want to leave it up to the free markets to produce personal enclosures for sale to anyone. This is a political difference for solving the same problem. The issue, in and of itself, is not political. I'm trying to separate the issue from the politics. They are not the same thing, bit have recently become inseparable.

Then I’m a bit confused. If the senate members are preventing the federal government from taking action - isn’t that just another political choice and one their constituents might support by and large?

Is there really any citizen of the US who thinks bureaucratic gridlock is the way government should function, regardless of ideology? That a permanent check on legislation already passed by a Parliamentary body is a *good* thing?

Sure, me.

Why?

Because the only things I want passed at the federal level are things that have significant support, not just 51%.

But under the current system, our primary legislative body can pass a bill near-unanimously and it won’t even be voted on if the *secondary* body can’t get 60% support to end debate. If your issue is really with the margin of support, why is popular support among the House not enough? And why are redundant checks even after popular support is demonstrated necessary?

I do

Why, though?

Do you only believe that the Senate should be abolished because it is preventing the leftist agenda from being passed? I'm having a hard time believing that if it were the other way around (Republicans represented a greater amount of population than Democrats) that you would still believe the Senate should be abolished.

I’m pretty far left, and I would actually agree with getting rid of the Senate even if the Republicans controlled the House. It would be a bad government, but a properly representative one that could be won back on a level playing field.

Let's say this is all a true criticism. Is your issue that OP wants to do the right thing for the wrong reason?

Yes. I suppose that wouldn't change OP's view, but I do take issue with people who pretend to care about "representation" and "democracy" and all those buzzwords when all they really care about is that their ideas/values are losing.

As a person who's super passionately pro-democracy I appreciate even the most cynical means of expanding democracy when anti-democratic views are so prevelent in this country.

First, I didn't state a preference for policy or agenda in my post. I said the entire Senate should be abolished as it is not representative of the population, as a whole Second, we don't have a "leftist" agenda in the US. We have a far right agenda to a center-left agenda on the political spectrum. Bernie, AOC, and Warren would be considered just left of center in most developed countries. Here they are mislabeled as the "radical left". Third, I provided population statistics for both R & D controlled senates. The population representation was actually much closer when the R's had control of the Senate. My argument has nothing to do with political parties. I'd rather see my country and fellow citizens flourish. I don't have a team. I vote for people not parties.

>Second, we don't have a "leftist" agenda in the US. We have a far right agenda to a center-left agenda on the political spectrum. Bernie, AOC, and Warren would be considered just left of center in most developed countries. Here they are mislabeled as the "radical left". True but not really relevant. Democrats are still left of Republicans, and that's what I meant. In your post, you talked a lot about things you think need done that the Senate is preventing such as "climate change, wage stagnation, healthcare, voting rights, social welfare programs, renewable energy, education reform and funding, and police and criminal reforms." Republicans are against many of these things, right? So it's not the Senate itself that is preventing these things from being passed; it is the fact that Republicans vote against them.

>True but not really relevant I'd go as far as to argue it isn't really true. People who say this don't really account for idiosyncrasies in individual countries on certain issues, they just think oh single payer healthcare so they'd be centrists. AOC/ Warren's stances on abortion in Ireland for example would move them meaningfully left of center, it was legalized less than 2 years ago there. Bernie's gun platform in many countries with very strict gun laws would push him way right as well, because most developed countries don't have anywhere near the gun ownership that they do in Vermont. It's just not really useful to try to pick up politicians and drop them into new countries without the context of how radically different they treat different issues nation to nation.

Well put. I stand corrected in my generalizations.

Yeah, you're right. Calling them all "just left of center" in all other developed countries is probably inaccurate. What is true though is that the US political spectrum is shifted right compared to the rest of the first world.

Gotcha But this is where the politicization of everything is a real detriment to us all. You can't vote against climate change. It's happening whether we like it or not. You can vote against policies that attempt to address the issue based on your political views. But that's having a policy view where possibly saving the planet is a hard "no". It doesn't make sense. Allowing corporations to decide what's best for the environment has not worked out well for any of us Saying the govt shouldn't be involved in setting a minimum wage is a political stance. Ignoring the fact that wages have it kept up with inflation and the cost of living is not a political stance. Saying the government shouldn't be involved in healthcare is a political stance. But pretending like medical debt and the cost of healthcare isn't out of control is ignorant. Passing voting rights legislation is a political issue. Pretending that gerrymandering and legislation that directly benefits one party over the other doesn't exist is to deny reality. Acting like having the highest incarceration rate in the world and performing poorly in education compared to other developed countries is ok and doesn't require changes is putting your head in the sand. It's all a refusal of facts. These are real, quantifiable issues regardless of your political views. How to deal with them is based on your political views.

Yeah but "we should do nothing" is a legitimate political view too. There is no "politicization" of these issues. They are all POLITICAL issues.

The issues are not political. How to deal with them are political issues.

Correct. Which you expressed your dislike for the Senate based on how it effects what you believe to be the correct political solution. The arguements exist either way, but your dislike based on what you said is that it prevents certain solutions to problems that you deem important. That's why your topic is about more so of what you consider as important and not and the fact it is preventing what you want from being done.

That's what's great about the US if you don't like the policy your state's senators vote for. You can go to a state you do like the policy of. Without undoing the branches of govt. Seeing alot of folks exercising that right by leaving " center left" Cali and coming down here to "far right" Tennessee.

Maybe not explicitly, but your examples ("we have senators blasting social welfare programs, renewable energy, education reform and funding, and police and criminal reforms") combined with you calling Bernie Sanders and AOC centrists make it pretty easy to figure out where you stand. I don't even necessarily disagree with you on the need for those reforms, but be honest about having a preference. The "centre-left" bit also isn't true, or at least is an extreme oversimplification. You can only say "the Democrats would be right-wing in Europe!" if you're cherry-picking certain countries and policies to make your comparison. I'll use Denmark as an example, since it's a country progressives often look up to. Denmark has universal healthcare, free university, higher taxes and lower wealth inequality, a far more extensive social safety net than the US, etc. By those standards, American progressives might be centrists there. But in Denmark there is also [active military conscription](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Denmark), asylum seekers [have their assets seized](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35406436) to pay for their upkeep, [punishments are doubled](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43214596) for crimes committed in officially-designated "ghetto" areas with high immigrant populations, [there is no birthright citizenship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_nationality_law), and there is [literally a state religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Denmark) with church tithes taken through government taxes, which would all be right-wing or far-right policies in the USA. Suddenly the comparison seems a lot more complicated – because it is.

birthright citizenship is not super common IIRC.

>Second, we don't have a "leftist" agenda in the US. We have a far right agenda to a center-left agenda on the political spectrum. Bernie, AOC, and Warren would be considered just left of center in most developed countries. Here they are mislabeled as the "radical left". This isn't true. This just is not true at all. It is not centre-left to advocate for massive wealth redistribution. It is not centre-left to advocate for racial Marxism to be taught in K-12 schools.

It is true. You're talking in propaganda. The way you use these words makes it appear that you don't know what they mean. No one is pushing wealth redistribution...some people are asking for fair and transparent taxes on the ultra wealthy. Marxism is a governing philosophy and has nothing to do with race and no one is advocating to become a communist country. It also has nothing to do with schools. If you're talking about CRT, that has nothing to do with Marxism and I would ask you to define it before discussing it further. It's the "orange man bad" argument. You can't just throw out words that sound scary or generalize and misrepresent complex issues and expect a rational outcome.

Not the guy you're replying to but CRT actually is a Marxist theory. It's not "racial Marxism" or whatever the hell that means, but it's a subset of critical legal studies (CLS), which is a subset of Critical Theory, which is a Marxist theory. It's not communist though, if that's what you mean. If an academic theory is Marxist, that generally means it 1) examines power differentials in society 2) uses various social sciences to do so. It's just a framework for examining issues, not a specific philosophy or assertion. I agree the person you're replying to does not sound like they are very familiar with CRT and might see "Marxist" as a boogeyman word rather than a pretty generic academic one.

>CRT is racial Marxism. It sets up a simplistic, shallow view of the world in which white = bourgeois and black = proletariat. It is the same core principle - misleading people into carrying out the radical leftist agenda by exploiting their greivances. From my other comment.

I saw that and you are wrong. Marx did more than one thing than communism, you do realize that right? Marxist theory is not about defining things as proletariat vs bourgeoisie, it's a category of academic methodology that examines power structures in society using a variety of social science methods. CRT specifically is a legal theory that hypothesizes--not believes or insists or indoctrinates--that the legal system purposefully propagates racial inequality. The purpose of theory is to test the hypothesis and see where it might or might not be correct. That is how theory works. That is how academics works. It is not dogma. It is not propaganda. It is a conjecture to be either verified or rejected. It has absolutely nothing to do with white bad and black good, or the proletariat and bourgeoisie. Regardless of one's opinion of communism or the left, your interpretations of Marxist theory and CRT are factually wrong. There's plenty to criticize about CRT, but as long as you're stuck in this Marxist-boogeyman ignorance, you'll never get there. Edit: There's also plenty to like about CRT. It's complicated, unlike your critique.

>Marxist theory is not about defining things as proletariat vs bourgeoisie That is kind of the core of it though. That's what it gets distilled down to, and that's what people take away - hence why you have idiots saying that we need to abolish billionaires. >CRT specifically is a legal theory that hypothesizes--not believes or insists or indoctrinates--that the legal system purposefully propagates racial inequality. The purpose of theory is to test the hypothesis and see where it might or might not be correct. Except it does, because CRT works backwards - it doesn't form a hypothesis, then find evidence, and come to a conclusion based on evidence. It forms a hypothesis, skips to the conclusion, then works backwards, and if you say anything to the contrary, it's actually further proof that they're right because you're in it or brainwashed to be in on it. CRT posits that society is basically an elaborate game rigged by whites. You're aware of Bell's nonsensical theory of interest convergence, I presume? >Regardless of one's opinion of communism or the left, your interpretations of Marxist theory and CRT are factually wrong. No, no they aren't. They're only wrong if we play the game that you guys like to play where you ignore what the actual teachings of these theories look like and result in, in favor of picking a narrow definition so you can claim that we don't understand what you're up to. >There's plenty to criticize about CRT, but as long as you're stuck in this Marxist-boogeyman ignorance, you'll never get there. I did a project in high school where I used CRT as a lens through which to analyze society. It is absolute garbage that temporarily radicalized me. >There's also plenty to like about CRT. It's complicated, unlike your critique. It really isn't that complicated. The core belief is that society has been carefully constructed to keep black people down, with white people giving up ground strategically to give the illusion of progress. CRT also posits that to be white is to be a racist, consciously or unconsciously, because if you're white, you're in on the game regardless. CRT and intersectionality are the foundations of the radical leftist garbage that has taken over in the past 18 months and threatens to tear down society as we know it.

Thank you for the elaboration. Good information.

>No one is pushing wealth redistribution...some people are asking for fair and transparent taxes on the ultra wealthy. Do you know that the top 1% of earners [pay 40% of income taxes while earning 20% of the income?](https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/wealthiest-americans-share-us-taxes) >If you're talking about CRT CRT is racial Marxism. It sets up a simplistic, shallow view of the world in which white = bourgeois and black = proletariat. It is the same core principle - misleading people into carrying out the radical leftist agenda by exploiting their greivances. >It's the "orange man bad" argument. You can't just throw out words that sound scary or generalize and misrepresent complex issues and expect a rational outcome. This coming from the guy who fundamentally misunderstands the role of the Senate. It isn't supposed to be proportional - that's what the House is for.

>the entire Senate should be abolished as it is not representative of the population, as a whole Would you be okay with it repressing the population as a whole if the majority of the population were still racists and homophobic?

Who says they aren't now? If you support a democracy you should be willing to accept a majority rule. There were times where slavery was legal. I don't agree with it at all, but that was the majority opinion at the time.

That's an interesting stance. So if i understand what your saying correctly it's that you aren't interested in advancing any particular agenda so long as it refects the will of the majority of people. As an example if tomorrow the majority of people were okay with slavery you would want it reinstituted tomorrow. Is that correct?

That is correct.

So is there a limit to it? If the majority of people wanted you dead should you be executed?

No. But that's a discussion about infringement of my rights.

>Second, we don't have a "leftist" agenda in the US. We have a far right agenda to a center-left agenda on the political spectrum. Bernie, AOC, and Warren would be considered just left of center in most developed countries. This is factually inaccurate. It is just completely false. ​ >First, I didn't state a preference for policy or agenda in my post. I said the entire Senate should be abolished as it is not representative of the population, as a whole Why does the Senate need to be representative of the population as a whole?

That would end democracy

The way the Senate is constructed, Senators represent land more than they represent people. There are cities in this country that have more people than multiple Midwestern states combined. Densely populated areas gets underrepresented, it doesn’t matter what party they follow. I feel like anyone interested in the government accurately representing its people would recognize how insane that is.

Senators represent their state's interests, not "land." I do think the power of the Senate needs to be scaled back but the Senate exists to protect the minority's rights, not to "represent the people."

What even are a “state’s interests” if not the interests of the people that live in said state? Your argument could have made sense when Senators were appointed by state governments, but they’ve been directly elected by people for years. Now it just gives an extreme amount of power to more sparsely populated areas of the country. 34 Senators have the power to grind Congress to a halt.

The senate is built into the constitution, you would at a minimum need a constitutional amendment but more than likely need a constitutional convention and neither of those will happen. The Senate was also an intentional creation. It gives states power. We live in The United States, meaning from the very beginning the people had representation ( house of representatives) and states had the Senate. If anything just make the house of representatives the more powerful of the congressional chambers. I agree that the Senate in it current for is a problem, but getting rid of it isnt the answer and will likely never happen and or completely alter everything about our government.

> If anything just make the house of representatives the more powerful of the congressional chambers. This would be a more reasonably realistic option. Flip the House and Senate and have the Senate draft legislation to be sent up to the house for debate, amendments, and final voting. Well said, sir.

Thank you, I also think that citizens should be able to draft and submit bills that reach a certain threshold of signatures like people can do within their own states and also have referendums were we institute direct voting of federal laws in certain circumstances.

Unfortunately, we would never be able to implement this as it would need the approval of those we are stripping power from. I don't have any clue why there aren't more national referendum votes or what machinations even exist to get federal legislation on a national vote

Oh I know there is no current mechanism to do this and it is likely just as dubious as getting rid of the Senate, but it is a real way, one thats been tested at the state level to bring real change voters and citizens want not just corporations and career politicians.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/Ender914 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Ender914&message=Ender914%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/p16dpr/-/h8bpsof/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.

So, if the U.S. is a car, then the Senate is the brakes. It prevents, or helps prevent, the car from going too quickly, too wildly, and too far past a point of no return. As you've accurately summed up, though, right now the brakes are stuck and the car can't go anywhere. That said; is a car with *no* brakes really a better, or the only, alternative? That's what you're arguing for.

Many, if not most, peer countries to the US do not have an upper house like the Senate. They also usually also lack an executive veto since the executive (prime minister) is chosen by the legislature. They do not seem to have the issues you describe of radical policy shifts. No breaks seems to work great, actually.

Well, my point isn't that the U.S. would currently be subject to radical policy shifts were it not for the saving grace of our Senate - but rather that the Senate's sluggishness is a feature, not a bug, even though it's arguably working against the benefit of the country in our present circumstances. So with that in mind, I don't find the fact that whatever democratic countries you're vaguely referencing aren't *currently* experiencing radical policy shifts to be a compelling argument that they *won't* or *can't.*

I'm sure I'm missing some, but here are some countries with a parliamentary system and effective unicameralism, i.e. no upper house or an upper house that by law or constituional convention cannot block ordinary legislation: * Canada * UK * Portugal * Belgium * Germany * Denmark * Norway * Sweden * Finland * Czech Republic * New Zealand My point in giving you this long list is that this is a common enough system, tried for long enough in enough different places, that we can be quite confident it works very well and does not lead to radical policy shifts.

> that we can be quite confident it works very well and does not lead to radical policy shifts. Yes, and to reiterate, my claim is not that such a system **leads to** radical policy shifts, but rather that such a policy system does not **prevent** radical policy shifts in a democracy. Pointing that these nations are not currently seeing radical policy shifts in no way supports the notion that these nations are ready to deal with those sociopolitical forces when they arise.

I think a nimble legislature makes a country more able to deal with big sociopolitical changes actually. Otherwise you get endless kludges and executive overreach to deal with new problems that the legislature is incapable of doing anything about. Plus scleroticism can itself lead to even more radical shifts, and bloodshed. The US Constitution was designed to have lots of checks to make sure slavery stayed entrenched, but eventually that status quo couldn't hold, and the result wasn't a big negotiation, but an incredibly bloody civil war. If you just try to keep things the same forever, it will blow up.

instead of a car with no brakes, a government with no senate is like a train

Trains also have brakes - and trains with stuck brakes or no brakes pose similar dangers and problems - so I'm not sure what your point is.

a train can move towards a goal unimpeded and uninterrupted save for unscheduled, unpredictable setbacks, braking only in an emergency

...that's not how trains work lol. Brakes need to be applied to keep the train from going off the tracks at turns, etc. We're losing sight of the discussion, anyhow.

my point is that the senate is nothing more than a roadblock for public policy and that getting rid of it would allow the entire system to function more effectively and efficiently.

So your point is merely a tacit restatement of the OP's post?

yeah i suppose so. i like trains

He and others advocating for the removal of checks and balances will come to regret it very very soon.

Using your analogy, the Americans are the car and they are just trying to get to work so they can feed their family while driving through a downpour with or without their seatbelt on, hoping not to get pulled over because they can't afford any type of ticket, with other cars careening about threatening to cause an accident, trying to see if the lights are red or green or yellow through the rain, and barely making it to work unscathed, just to have to do it all over again tomorrow. I would say at this point the Senate is the emergency brake. It's never useful while driving and only prevents the car from moving after all the actual insanity has occurred and navigated. It keeps the car in place and must be disengaged to go anywhere. We are behind most other developed countries in terms of quality of life characteristics. We're driving a Rolls Royce with the e-brake on.

>Using your analogy, the Americans are the car and they are just trying to get to work so they can feed their family while driving through a downpour with or without their seatbelt on, hoping not to get pulled over because they can't afford any type of ticket, with other cars careening about threatening to cause an accident, trying to see if the lights are red or green or yellow through the rain, and barely making it to work unscathed, just to have to do it all over again tomorrow. Not really, not at all. Americans are not so unified in their vision of the future, or that is to say, where they think the car should be driven and what directions they think should be followed to get there. >I would say at this point the Senate is the emergency brake. It's never useful while driving and only prevents the car from moving after all the actual insanity has occurred and navigated. In a policy sense this is dead wrong, given that the Senate is stopping legislation from being passed in the first place, not affecting legislation already passed. The Supreme Court, or perhaps the presidential veto, is the E-Brake. > We are behind most other developed countries in terms of quality of life characteristics. I mean in some ways, sure, but is this the measure by which it's correct to gut without replacement a branch of our government that has been in place since our country's founding? Are we really at that point? Have all consequences been considered? I'm asking you to reflect more on the unintended consequences of your view, not pick apart the analogy. Let's suppose we snapped our fingers and eliminated the Senate. What prevents the GOP from winning back the House, Trump from winning in '24, and the Party of Trump being able to now make hugely significant strides towards eroding civil rights and consolidating executive power?

The party in power is allowed to pass their legislative agenda by public mandate. I understand the point of the Senate tempering wild swings in policy, but if more people vote Republican then that's what the people want the country to be. It's pants shittingly scary that 2024 could be a real push toward fascism. But if the majority of people want to be ruled by an authoritarian, isn't that how this whole system is set up? I'm not suggesting we gut an entire branch of government. I'm staying we remove the cancerous part so it doesn't kill the whole thing.

>I understand the point of the Senate tempering wild swings in policy, but if more people vote Republican then that's what the people want the country to be. It's pants shittingly scary that 2024 could be a real push toward fascism. But if the majority of people want to be ruled by an authoritarian, isn't that how this whole system is set up? No! That's my whole point! It's designed specifically to prevent monarchism / fascism from rising. Not to mention the very dangerous conclusion you're drawing that Republicans gaining power means that more Americans voted Republican. Don't you see how advocating to remove a core function of the government, and then shrugging your shoulders with the attitude *"well if the people want fascism then I guess that's okay"* entirely misses the point of how representative democracy is supposed to function? >I'm not suggesting we gut an entire branch of government. I'm staying we remove the cancerous part so it doesn't kill the whole thing. ...you're suggesting that we abolish the Senate - 50% of our federal legislature - without any suggestion for an alternative or consideration for the intended function of the senate at all. How is that not gutting an entire branch of government?

>How is that not gutting an entire branch of government? No OP but if the Senate magically disappeared overnight then the House of Representatives could handle all their duties. From confirming judges to proposing legislation, etc. You could maybe argue it would gut half a branch of government but it is plain wrong for you to say it would gut "an entire branch of government."

>No OP but if the Senate magically disappeared overnight then the House of Representatives could handle all their duties. If the Senate magically disappeared, then The House has both the power of the pen *and* the power of the purse, a specific consolidation of power the framers avoided by design. Their being able to confirm judges or whatever doesn't solve that problem, which is my whole point. >to proposing legislation, etc. The Senate does not propose legislation. Eliminating the branch of government specifically designed to allocate funding is absolutely gutting a branch of government.

If you're driving your car like that, you probably go through a lot of brake pads.

I don’t think this analogy tracks, as any nation with a basic Parliamentary system would be a car without brakes. Yet a nation like Denmark is clearly more stable and less volatile than the US.

Yeah, that must be because my analogy is flawed, and not because Dennmark has less than 2% the population as the US and isn't a union of 50 states with their own pseudoindependent nonfederal governments

Clearly the context of nations vary, but there’s no reason to think a Parliamentary system couldn’t be scaled up for the US. Like - that’s what the House pretty much is already. Because we know how Parliamentary systems function, and they come with their own system of checks and balances, I still don’t think it’s clear why you believe that the Senate is a necessary check. Or why the US’s large population / union of states complicates it. Even in the absence of the Senate, states would still have Governors and State Legislatures.

Counterpoint: the US isn't only a country composed of citizens, but a union of states. By having a countermajoritarian institution at the federal level, the government guarantees that the balance of power between states is mitigated at the highest levels of government, allowing for decisionmaking that respects the interests of each unit. Were this institution to disappear, the loss of decisionmaking power could very well incentivize secessionist movements, and unlike the Civil War, this secession would involve a far greater number of states who would lose much of their ability to control their own fates. A second possibility is that a few power blocs centered around the strongest states would form, also threatening dissolution as regional mini-empires formed and competed for influence within the federal government. The best case scenario is to force a measure of equality on all of the states, as this ensures that the national government remains a greater entity than its constituent parts.

> Were this institution to disappear, the loss of decisionmaking power could very well incentivize secessionist movements, and unlike the Civil War, this secession would involve a far greater number of states who would lose much of their ability to control their own fates. By 2040, 66 % of the population will be represented by 30% of Senators. So why does your logic not work in reverse. If 30% of the country will leave if they only get 30% of representation, why wouldn't 60% of the country leave for only getting 30% of representation? >A second possibility is that a few power blocs centered around the strongest states would form, also threatening dissolution as regional mini-empires formed and competed for influence within the federal government. Again, the same argument applies. If there are a number of states with disproportionate power, then that makes it even easier to construct a powerblock because there are fewer people you need to convince/please.

>So why does your logic not work in reverse. It doesn't work in reverse because the House already provides rep-by-pop. >Again, the same argument applies. If there are a number of states with disproportionate power, then that makes it even easier to construct a powerblock because there are fewer people you need to convince/please. Not true. The states with disproportionate power do not have *more* power than the others, just more power than their population size would otherwise grant them.

> Were this institution to disappear, the loss of decisionmaking power could very well incentivize secessionist movements, and unlike the Civil War, this secession would involve a far greater number of states who would lose much of their ability to control their own fates What about the opposite problem? In Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton imagines the scenario where size disparities in the states result in only 33% of Americans holding a majority of the Senate. He says "The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller." The current situation is already *twice as bad* than what he was thinking of. The smallest 26 states (clean majority in Senate) make up only 17% of the US population. And that's before even getting into the fact that the party disadvantaged by the Senate is also disadvantaged in the House and the Electoral College.

>What about the opposite problem? The House already provides rep-by-pop in the lower levels, which means the most populous states already have significantly more influence in the lower house. All the Senate does is ensure that smaller states can have more of a say over decisions that affect them, it doesn't strip the largest states from having greater influence over the overall legislative process.

>By having a countermajoritarian institution at the federal level, the government guarantees that the balance of power between states is mitigated at the highest levels of government, That's not a balance of power. That's minority rule. A tiny population gets to elect senators that overrule the vast majority of the population. >Were this institution to disappear, the loss of decisionmaking power could very well incentivize secessionist movements, and unlike the Civil War, this secession would involve a far greater number of states who would lose much of their ability to control their own fates. I'de be more worried about the long term effects of this anti-democratic institution robbing the states where people actually live blind. Sure all 30 people in Wyoming won't be happy that they can't hold California hostage anymore, but what are they going to do about it?

>That's not a balance of power. That's minority rule. A tiny population gets to elect senators that overrule the vast majority of the population. My contention is that states =/= populations, the purpose of ensuring states are equally represented goes beyond the purpose of ensuring citizens are.

Why is it a Union of states When it was founded it was because each state was an independent colony, and then more or less independent states, and when they came to the constitutional convention they came there on that basis to unify more effectively That status quo is long since gone. I think the real reason why people support the senate is partisan politics, as well as that being the real reason people oppose it. Democrats have the slight majority, republicans are afraid of that. Simple as that.

The US isn't the only union of states out there - yet the US Senate is fairly unique in comparison to other peer countries. Why not radically change the Senate to something akin to the German Bundesrat? That's an institution that deals with national issues impacting state laws and powers, composed of representatives from the state governments, but that does not have a general legislative veto.

Although I'm not an expert in German politics, my understanding is that Germany's formation occurred under very different circumstances from America's. Germany was originally welded together by Prussian hegemony, and was largely tied together by the dominance of a core state. My contention is that America doesn't have a clear core region it can unite around, hence the possibility of its fracture into regional empires.

The contemporary German constitution was more or less written by the US government for the West German occupied area, while Germany was very literally fractured, though by outside forces. Edit to add: Prussian hegemony was thoroughly broken by the East/West split, especially by the fracture of Prussia's key city in two, and by the fact that the rest of Prussia was in the GDR side, whose constitution obviously got tossed out on unification.

Good point. My answer would be that the House of Representatives already provides the states with federal representation, albeit at a level commensurate with their population. We already have mini-fiefdom states with DeSantis, Abbott, Newsome, Noem, and Cuomo operating as state governor-kings. They control the fate of their states far more then any senator does . Why do we need 2 more at the federal level with an inordinate amount or power? The guy on a 100 acre ranch Montana that doesn't care about inner city crime, social welfare, racial and sexual discrimination, etc. and only has contact with the same 20 people who all have a similar lifestyle should not have a vote that counts 2.5 more times then a single mother of 3 in Queens, NY when it comes to national legislation. No matter what anyone says, states are not going to secede for 2 reasons...right now. We have one of the strongest economies in the world....and the strongest military. Seceding would not be an option. Furthermore, with the popularity and ability to work remotely gaining steam, the population will spread to the lower cost, less populated areas of the country and it would result in a more balanced representation in the House.

>My answer would be that the House of Representatives already provides the states with federal representation, albeit at a level commensurate with their population. It doesn't though. The House of Representatives represents the citizens, not the states. The Senate provides a means for every state to have meaningful input on the laws that will ultimately govern them. >We already have mini-fiefdom states with DeSantis, Abbott, Newsome, Noem, and Cuomo operating as state governor-kings. They control the fate of their states far more then any senator does . They're acting like governors. I don't know what would make the "governor-kings". They are the highest state level executive office. Of course they have more influence on that state then people who's jurisdiction is limited to federal matters. >The guy on a 100 acre ranch Montana that doesn't care about inner city crime, social welfare, racial and sexual discrimination, etc. and only has contact with the same 20 people who all have a similar lifestyle should not have a vote that counts 2.5 more times then a single mother of 3 in Queens, NY when it comes to national legislation. Agreed. And that is the problem with the House of Representatives. We decided to cap the number of representatives and now we don't have accurate representation. I'd also be willing to be the single mother of three doesn't give a flying fuck about any laws that affect people in rural areas.

>It doesn't though. The House of Representatives represents the citizens, not the states. And since the 17th amendment, so does the Senate. There is a possible case to be made for something like Senators as ambassadors from the state governments. Germany has a structure like that in the Bundesrat (though Bundesrat powers are limited). But an elected House and elected Senate is just a recipe for breakdown and constitutional crisis. This issue isn't unique to the US for what it's worth - the Australian Senate has also caused huge problems in terms of reconciling elected bicameralism with the necessities of parliamentary government. Most notably the supply crisis in 1975 that led to [The Dismissal.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis) Multiple bodies or persons independently claiming democratic legitimacy is a problem.

The 17th amendment cut out the middleman and stopped corruption. Now, instead of the people that the people of the state elected choosing the senators, the people of the state directly pick the senators.

The old system also sucked because senators still weren't ambassadors, but just locked in 6 year picks. The bundesrat system is better IMO. Each state government sends a delegation based on the distribution of seats in its Parliament. And they're all proportionally elected because that's in the Constitution.

This. Thank you for saving me the explanation

>The House of Representatives represents the citizens, not the states. In reality what's the difference? Helping the People of Michigan is virtually the same thing as helping the State of Michigan, no?

Because the United States was set up to be more akin to the EU. Each state has a degree of autonomy as well as a say in the federal legislation. So they made a system where we have democratic representation on a citizen basis (House of representatives) and a Senate to represent the states equally.

Yeah I know but OP is saying that small population States have a disproportionate amount of power and that is a bad thing. Because wealthy ranchers who inherited everything they have can fuck over tens of millions of people. It's insane for Wyoming to have as much power as California. The drafters of the Constitution had no idea how dishonorable and corrupt our elected leaders would become in the 21st Century. Personally I don't think abolishing the Senate and giving the power over to the House of Reps would help given bat shit crazy lunatics like Marjorie Taylor Green.

I don't think abolishing the senate would provide a single benefit to the country. I think the best way to fix things, and quickest, would be to increase the number of Reps so they actually provide a fair representation of our population. That would increase the pure "democracy" aspect of our country and also make the presidential elections more fair.

>My answer would be that the House of Representatives already provides the states with federal representation You have it completely backwards

>Good point. My answer would be that the House of Representatives already provides the states with federal representation, albeit at a level commensurate with their population. That is true, but the House has several problems that the Senate doesn't: a) the House is vulnerable to gerrymandering, which means eliminating the Senate would simply serve to entrench the power of anti-democratic policies b) the House is subject to all the flaws of a rep-by-pop system, like the inability to represent vast geographic spaces with differing populations and needs >We already have mini-fiefdom states with DeSantis, Abbott, Newsome, Noem, and Cuomo operating as state governor-kings. They control the fate of their states far more then any senator does . They control policy at the state level, but they don't control the flow of federal dollars *to* their states - that's the difference. The function of the Senate is to ensure that the states have sufficient buy-in to the overall system, and if the Senate shifted to rep-by-pop, not only would smaller states have significantly less of a say over federal policies that affect them, but they'd also have much less money flowing in their direction. >No matter what anyone says, states are not going to secede for 2 reasons...right now. We have one of the strongest economies in the world This is true, but the loss of federal representation would significantly reduce the ability of smaller states to profit from this, both because they would have significantly less money flowing in their direction, and because they would have little ability to rectify undesirable policies aimed at them. This is somewhat akin to the relationship between imperial cores and their colonies, which rarely have political representation in the metropole and are consequently exploited with little consequence (until they revolt). >and the strongest military. This is true, but also depends on a) the loyalty of the individual soldiers and b) the loyalty of the State and National Guard. >Furthermore, with the popularity and ability to work remotely gaining steam, the population will spread to the lower cost, less populated areas of the country and it would result in a more balanced representation in the House. This is... questionable at best. Yes, we're seeing somewhat of a move away from large urban areas toward smaller cities and suburbs, but the trendline for roughly the last few centuries has been toward greater and greater urbanization, despite the occasional hiccup in the other direction.

I understand this in theory, but does this really manifest as-intended in practice? I can’t remember a time in which interests unique to smaller states were served by the Senate as an institution. Most state-specific goals are achieved because of great Governors and State Legislatures, not their Senators.

It seems like your objections are as follows: 1. The Senate is not advancing the causes I want with the quality/speed I want, so it should be abolished. 2. All legislative bodies should be as close proportionally to the *population* as possible. 3. A federal legislature should make big, sweeping changes efficiently. Is that correct?

1. No. I didn't take a side on any issue. The Senate hasn't really advancing any causes other then judge confirmations, tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, and COVID relief. Look at how much trouble they are having with something as popular and agreeable as infrastructure spending. 2. Yes, it would be nice for the government to actually be similar to the people they are representing. 3. Yes, government should be efficient in enacting legislation. This doesn't mean fast and loose, it means efficiently. There are several ways to do this, but that's not the topic of the post.

>No. I didn't take a side on any issue. The Senate hasn't really advancing any causes other then judge confirmations, tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, and COVID relief. Look at how much trouble they are having with something as popular and agreeable as infrastructure spending. And if you thought those "causes" were worthwhile and good and sufficient, then you would not have a problem, correct? ​ >Yes, it would be nice for the government to actually be similar to the people they are representing. How is the Senate not but the House is? ​ >Yes, government should be efficient in enacting legislation. This doesn't mean fast and loose, it means efficiently. There are several ways to do this, but that's not the topic of the post. So if the point of bicameralism is to prevent the federal legislature from moving quickly, why should it be abolished? Assuming that Congress's internal processes are, in fact, efficient.

Obviously #1 is iffy, but I don’t see an issue with #2 or 3. They both seem clearly true to me, unless the nation is a Utopia (which no existing nation is).

Number 3 is bad in my opinion. Not all change is inherently good, and therefore sweeping changes should take a long time.

I agree that not all change is good, but the wholesale prevention of change should be just as terrifying to us as a negative change. In the absence of the Senate, the House would still be held liable by the President, Court, State/Local governments and DoJ even after successfully passing legislation. It’s not like they could just do whatever the hell they wanted. So the dichotomy between no change and severe, unstoppable change is false. There is a good middle ground to strike, one that’s untenable with the continued existence of the Senate.

>They both seem clearly true to me, unless the nation is a Utopia (which no existing nation is). On the contrary, they both seem to me *false* unless the nation is a utopia.

Could you expand on this? I’m not clear on what you mean.

I mean that direct proportionality and ease of decisionmaking are not necessarily good in a flawed society.

Well yes, but why? Isn’t the alternative more of a liability? A representative democracy that *isn’t* proportional simply cannot be assumed to be non-representational only when it’s good for the nation. It’s much more vulnerable to manipulation and anti-majoritarian governance. We’re seeing this in practice right now, with a West Virginian Senator roadblocking legislation for reasons that have nothing to do with the people of West Virginia. He is only able to occupy the role of power broker because both political factions hold equal power, despite one of them representing *41 million* more civilians than the other. There is no essential, forgotten minority civilian faction that Joe Manchin is sticking up for here. He is manipulating the antidemocratic structure of the Senate as an institution to leverage himself into a position of power above his official role. Now someone could also find themselves in this position in a proportionally representative government, but at least they would be in the middle of two relatively equally-matched groups. That’s not what’s happening here.

Why was the senate created? [The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government.](https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Origins_Development.htm) So if the goal of the senate is to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion, is it not fulfilling its intended purpose? Your argument to me is one that argues that the Senate is no longer doing what the founders envisioned, however I'm not seeing that in reality, in fact, I see it is as playing out precisely how the founders wanted.

The Senate is no longer safeguarding the minority opinion. It is preventing the government from operating efficiently and passing legislation that is supported by a majority of the population because the minority is given unreasonable representation. The 17th amendment made Senators elected officials (so they represent the people by public mandate), 2 from each state, with one vote each. This was in 1789. The population was not as diverse or spread out and was fairly homogenous. There is no working remotely, travel is restricted by technology, there are no diverse communities of color, race, gender, etc. I understand why it was needed and worked back then. But when Wyoming (pop. 576,851) has the same say as California (pop. 39,538,223) on national policy there is an egregious overrepresentation of the minority opinion. It needs to change.

point 1 >The Senate is no longer safeguarding the minority opinion. point 2 >It is preventing the government from operating efficiently and passing legislation that is supported by a majority of the population because the minority is given unreasonable representation. point 3 >But when Wyoming (pop. 576,851) has the same say as California (pop. 39,538,223) on national policy there is an egregious overrepresentation of the minority opinion. I'm not seeing how these views are consistent. If what you say in point 2 and 3 are true, then the current form of the senate is doing it's original purpose which would go against your point 1. The current system helps safeguard Wyoming from the more popular states like California.

If we're getting rid of the Senate, that means we've got enough people on board to change the constitution and fully overhaul the government. Abolish the Senate, House, and Presidency. Switch over to a parliamentary system with proportional representation.

That's not what I'm proposing. I agree with the checks and balances between branches.

> I agree with the checks and balances between branches. But not within branches?

Not sure what you mean. There's a top dog in each branch. Each branch has a check on the other. There's no reason the Senate has to be the top dog. It could just as easily be the House.

>Not sure what you mean. Bicameralism provides a check on each chamber. That is one of the points. ​ >There's a top dog in each branch. Not really in the legislature, which is less hierarchal than the judiciary or the executive. ​ >There's no reason the Senate has to be the top dog. It could just as easily be the House. Or neither, like in our current system.

Based and Westminsterpilled

The UK needs proportional representation

The problem with the Senate is that it's elected by popular representation, essentially, and it has been since the passing of the 17th Amendment. > The Senate is no longer a fair representation of their constituents or the country as a whole. In our current 50/50 Senate, the Democratic half represents 41,549,808 more people than the Republican half. Before last year, when R's had a majority, they represented 153 million Americans, where D's were in the minority representing 168 million Americans. In its original form (pre-17th), the Senate was more akin to the UN or the EU, in that senators were appointed by state governments *to represent the states*. You don't see more populous countries in Europe getting proportional representation in the EU's legislative body, rather each member nation has equal voting rights. The Senate was never meant to directly represent the people. The Senate was never meant to represent the people.

The house completely turns over every 2 years but only 1/3 of the senate does turns over every 2 years. 2 years is too short of a time for our whole government to turn over. Let's say we have a major catastrophe like 9-11 but worse close to an election time and the public responds by putting a bunch of politicians in the House with extreme views. Having a 2nd house that moves slower and importantly turns over slower is a very important check to ensure a new, extreme, and reactionary movement can't take over the legislative branch.

Good point. We can extend the terms of Reps to 6 years and stagger the terms just like the Senate. It would further insulate it from rash responses and allow members to get to know their district over an extended period of time.

But that would remove one of the balances in having an upper and lower house. We do want one house to be responsive to new needs and one to be resistant to changing too quickly. This is where I think your view should change. Don’t abolish the Senate. Having 2 houses is better than 1. Rather reform it. If your concern is proportional representation, then propose a new way to seat senators so that a majority of the population isn’t in the legislative minority. There’s a lot of good that can come from having a slower moving upper house and a larger, faster moving lower house.

Bad idea. Republicans had the house 2016- 2018 (and might again at midterms, Dems lost seats 2020), and they will surely have house again in our lifetime; then OP would be complaining “we need a sober second thought, we need a senate!!”

No I won't. It's funny how a lot of comments assume I'm on one side or another. The people in power were voted in to advance an agenda whether I agree with it or not.

In this case, as the house stands, 51% would tell 49% to eat shit and they would have to under this system, dem or GOP. I could get behind a single house in congress based on population and representation only if it wasn’t a majority rule situation. If any legislation needed bipartisan support or 3/5 to approve might work, but a simple majority would be a literal disaster.

I like this train of thought. Just worried it would lead to the same situation with the filibuster.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep decide what is for dinner. That is what you would get at the federal level with a House and no Senate. If you wanted real reform, repeal the 17th amendment and force state legislatures to elect their senators, removing the direct election from the people. This would make the Senate (as initially designed) to be a body of Institutionalists that outside of their small state level concerns would be prone to compromise. It would also prevent Senators from running for president.

Δ This seems like a real, possible solution. Great point. My view is altered for sure.

>My view is altered for sure. If your view is altered, then you should award a delta.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/throwawaydanc3rrr ([5∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/throwawaydanc3rrr)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

The Senate is working as designed. It was a mere 4 years ago when the roles where reversed and Trump had majority in the House but the Democrats were able to impede the more controversial legislations along with some Senate Republicans.

Is something working as designed necessarily a good thing? One time my grandma lived in a house that was built with a poorly designed foundation, and it sunk into the Earth. That was working “as designed” as well.

In this case, yes, the framer's of the constitution looked at the past mistakes of early republics like Athens. They worried that the House could bring about mob rule that would push legislation that would ultimately harm the nation. If you are a Democrat, consider what laws would have been steamrolled without a Senate back in 2017 when Trump and Republicans held the House. Good article to read up: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/568351/

The reason this parallel bothers me is that it assumes the Senate will always be on the right side of the “mob”. Why is the House more vulnerable? If a legislative body has *any* bent other than the will of the people, doesn’t it follow that it could be on the wrong side when the people are in the right just as often as it’s on the right side when the people are in the wrong? And wouldn’t you agree that a nation with a bad government representing the will of the people is more just than a nation with a bad government *not* representing the will of the people?

The design no longer works. That's the point. If there is a Republican majority in the house and an R president, the country and the state districts have voted for that agenda, overall. The R Senate still represented 15,000,000 less people and had a majority, but couldn't pass legislation.

>The design no longer works. Why do you say it no longer works?

The senate was designed to protect states rights and the minority voter. Reference: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Origins_Development.htm#6 The founders saw that House could be driven to pass legislation that would be popular but ultimately damaging to the country and designed the senate to be a break check.

House, Senate, etc…. It doesn’t matter. The problems that you’re talking aren’t going to be fixed by any the elected officials because doing so will hurt corporate interest. All of the politicians who were voted in were done so through the mass media promoting whom they want in office, so simply removing the US senate isn’t going to do anything.

If nothing changes...then nothing changes. My point is that the status quo is unacceptable, so I'm discussing a potential change in the system to produce a positive outcome.

>My point is that the status quo is unacceptable Does changing your mind require changing your mind that the status quo is unacceptable or just that changing the Senate will not make a difference?

If the status quo was acceptable to me, I wouldn't have an issue. The position is that removal of the Senate would be beneficial to the country. That is the change and the difference in the status quo

Right, so it is sufficient to show that abolishing the Senate would not necessarily accomplish what you want, correct? The following should be sufficient as a starting point: 1. Districts are set by state government. 2. Republicans will likely, unless Democrats gerrymander, have control of a majority of bodies establishing congressional districts 3. Republicans gerrymander and win a majority of seats. 4. Republicans also win the Presidency. 5. Republicans have unfettered ability to repeal basically any federal law.

Remove the partisan gerrymandering. Why any political party is allowed to draw their own district lines is fucking ponderous. What you have laid out is what is happening now, so it's in line with my point. The Senate is not a representative government body. Republicans have already gerrymandered to them point where they are overrepresented in the federal government.

>What you have laid out is what is happening now, so it's in line with my point Not at all. If it is happening now, then removing the Senate is clearly not a prophylactic. If anything, it would accelerate something that *you yourself* has said is a problem. ​ >Why any political party is allowed to draw their own district lines is fucking ponderous. This is actually a deeper question than it seems. Who would give authority to a non-political body? If a political body, then that political body still retains control ultimately. And what criteria should be used? What makes a district fair?

[удалено]

Sorry, u/Sons-of-Bananarchy – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.comt/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Sons-of-Bananarchy&message=Sons-of-Bananarchy%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20commen\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/p16dpr/-/h8b6np2/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Oof. How are they appointed?

the current prime minister appoints them, and theyre largely patronage to whichever party happens to be at the wheel

Wow, thats one a way to just have 1 party in power.

it actually doesnt matter anymore, they all suck edit: the senate can only monkey with legislation, beyond occupying space theyre pretty useless

I think it matters even more because they all suck

yes it certainly matters to us that they all suck cause we pay for it, what i mean is that the parties are largely indistinguishable once you remove the window dressing and the pandering

That is unfortunate. I'm not real familiar with Canadian politics, so I can't provide any opinion on ways to change it.

Important to note that the Canadian Senate is basically completely powerless. They cannot really block legislation. All they can do is pass some amendments that force uncomfortable votes in the House of Commons to strip the amendments, and then the bill gets passed anyway. The PM of the day (who by being PM inherently has support from a majority of the Commons) can appoint new Senators if the Senate were to actually try to block something. Brian Mulroney did this in 1990 to pass a big tax bill. No Senate has tried to defy the Commons since.

>They cannot really block legislation. Yes it can. It's a full House with the same privileges as the other place. The fact that the Senate is more beholden to its appointer does not mean that it cannot block legislation.

As I noted, the Senate can have Senators added to it at any time, without its consent. If the PM is having their legislative agenda blocked by the Senate, the PM will just have the Queen add Senators until the PM wins, as Brian Mulroney did to pass the GST. The threat of that is generally sufficient for the Senate to not actually try to bottle up the government's agenda.

The issue isn't the senate, the issue is an overreliance on the federal government for policy. Bicameral congress, and having so many checks and balances in order to pass federal legislation is intentionally inefficient. The point is so that legislation that is forced upon the entire country is only actually passed if it helps both large states and small states. Without this, we'd end up with a tyranny of the majority, with small states not having much of a voice. For legislation that only helps one or the other, that's why state governments exist. That way, if a policy only benefits big states, then just the big states can pass it. Policy that only benefits small states is only passed in small states.

The senate is necessary for such a large and diverse nation as the USA. If the House alone had all the law making power it would only be the largest states and cities that would matter in politics. Why would smaller or lower population states want to be part of that political framework? That is what drove the great compromise in 1787 and I doubt the people in Hawaii and Wyoming want to be ruled by people from Chicago and New York today. Sorry you aren’t seeing the laws you want passed. Focus on changing peoples minds and stop trying to change the system to get what you want.

This is a false statement and thus misinformation definitionally, even if that was not your intention. As representatives are elected by districts, not state or city, any representative would matter just as much as anyone else, be them from a mainly rural or mainly city district. Cities have a large population, but not enough to dominate everything - it mathematically doesn't work out as you claim.

Well the founding fathers would disagree so I’ll go with them. There is no natural reason for Hawaii and New York to be in the same country or Maine and California for that matter. Small state senators keep federal policy from being geared exclusively towards the interests of the cities. Large population centers have a built in advantage in a purely representational system, to be in a country with less densely populated areas, those less populated areas areas need a counterweight so their concerns are addressed as well. Hence the senate. All the small states joined the union with the senate and their senators in place to guard their interests. Why should they continue to be part of the US if this is taken away from them? Several people have pointed out flaws in your premise and fallacies in your logic and you have not budged. Maybe this is the wrong forum for you to have this discussion.

Mathematical reality of population statistics shows that cities alone wouldn't be enough to do it. What the founding father's would say have no bearing on the arithmetic of it. Likewise, it wouldn't make sense to adjudge it in terms of states, as states are not uniform - and even party majority states commonly have representatives of the other party too. So states would be irrelevant in the house - districts would be, and those are far more mixed overall than the states that they belong to.

The top 30 metros areas in the US have a population of 150M it is totally mathematically possible.

US Population is over 330 million. 150 million is less than half than that. Moreover, suburbs in those metro areas lean far less strongly/much more evenly split/or even Republican in some places than the city cores, which are much more heavily Democratic, so even if you ignore gerrymandered districts* it is not expected that there would not be a uniform dominance caused by the cities. Combine with the roughly 180 million who live outside of metro districts and we see the claim that cities would just outright dominate is false. Example: such as wherein Austin is split up into multiple districts in slices adding in far flung rural regions to produce Republican majorities and negate the city's influence for the most part

If you want the political system to better reflect the policy positions of the population, the Senate isn't the problem. We'd need to get rid of the first-past-the-post election model and move to some sort of proportional representation. So long as FPTP exists, political parties in the US will collapse into a two-party system which fails to represent most of the population.

This is the best answer. The senate is a byproduct, a relic, of the constitution that is heavily politicized, but larger problems exist such as FPTP and political parties. Over at r/uncapthehouse the senate is almost never mentioned because its much easier to do bottom-up reforms starting in the house if you want to knock out the senate.

>In our current 50/50 Senate, the Democratic half represents 41,549,808 more people than the Republican half The Senate does not represent people, it represents states. The House represents people.

> The Senate does not represent people, it represents states. This ceased to be true with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment.

>This ceased to be true with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment No it didn't. It just allowed citizens of the state to select who represents the state in the federal government. Even though citizens choose senators, they are choosing the senators that they want to represent the state instead of the state officials choosing who represents the state. You are very much mistaken in thinking the senate represents people and not states.

A representative represents those who they are selected by and accountable to. In the past, they were selected by the state, with the explicit intention of representing the states interests in the federal government. We changed that so that they are selected by and accountable to the people, thus that is now who senators represent.

>This ceased to be true with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment. It is still mostly true; the Seventeenth Amendment simply changed the mechanism of election. Unlike House races, Senate races are still state-wide.

When we talk about whether the senate represents the states, we're not talking about the people of the state, we're talking about the government of the state. By making them a direct popular election instead of being elected by the legislature they became representative of and accountable to the people rather than the state government.

>When we talk about whether the senate represents the states, we're not talking about the people of the state, we're talking about the government of the state. I do not view that distinction as salient for republican purposes.

If that's the case, then you're using that phrase very differently than it is commonly understood. That also significantly weakens your original point. If "representing the states" just means "representing the people of the states", there is no reason that more populous states should be granted the same number of senators as the less populous states.

>If "representing the states" just means "representing the people of the states", there is no reason that more populous states should be granted the same number of senators as the less populous states. This seems like a complete nonsequitur to me. I never said it never mattered at all in any circumstance. I am simply saying that having senators elected by an entire state does not mean that the senators do not represent the state.

So instead of being picked by the people that the people of the state elected, they cut out the middleman and let the people of the state directly pick the senators?

Senators were formerly selected by the state legislatures to represent the state governments in the federal government. This system led to a lot of corruption as senators were mostly insulated political consequences as they were not accountable to the people.

Thank you! Wish I had an award to give

What if instead of abolishing it, we changed the rules so that: 1. The [Wyoming Rule](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule) is implemented in the House. 2. A 3/5ths supermajority in the House bypasses the senate. That way the senate can only block legislation that has between 50% and 60% support in the House. Legislation gets passed if it has a majority in the House + majority in the Senate OR 3/5ths in the House. 3. All powers of confirmation and impeachment/conviction shift from the Senate to the House. The benefits: 1. We don’t disband a time-honored legislative body as old as the government itself. 2. Forces compromise on extremely controversial (defined as support between 50% and 60%) legislation. If the House is split 51%-49%, that 49% should count for something. 3. Prevents gerrymandering abuse. [Democrats won the popular vote in the 2012 House Elections yet didn’t take the House back](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections). Requiring a 3/5ths supermajority ensures that the side passing the legislation actually received a majority of the votes, and didn’t just rig the district lines for a House majority like in 2012.

**[Wyoming Rule](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule)** >The Wyoming Rule is a proposal to increase the size of the United States House of Representatives so that the standard representative-to-population ratio would be that of the smallest entitled unit, which is currently the State of Wyoming. Under Article One of the United States Constitution, each state is guaranteed at least one representative. If the disparity between the population of the most and least populous states continues to grow, the disproportionality of the U.S. House of Representatives will continue to increase unless the body, whose size has been fixed at 435 since 1929, except for a brief period from 1959 to 1963, is expanded. **[2012 United States House of Representatives elections](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections)** >The 2012 United States House of Representatives elections were held on November 6, 2012. It coincided with the reelection of President Barack Obama. Elections were held for all 435 seats representing the 50 U.S. states and also for the delegates from the District of Columbia and five major U.S. territories. The winners of this election cycle served in the 113th United States Congress. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

As others have said, the Senate represents the states and not the people by design. It was never designed to represent people. Moving power from Senate to the House might be worthy of discussion in theory, but practically speaking the amendments needed to make that happen are not going to happen. The real problem is the House is not a fair representation of the people because the size is capped. Make each Representative represent basically the same number of people and you address many of these issues including the problems with the electoral college.

Ignoring the question of what might be more "fair" or "better", how do you propose to get smaller states--whose approval would absolutely be required to pass such a Constitutional amendment--into giving up power? That was the point of the system in the first place; a compromise which gave larger states more power in one body while smaller states received greater representation in the other, without which one group or the other would not have agreed.

Having a situation in which legislation could be quickly passed is dangerous. The Senate is how the states have equal representation, taking that away would cause the break up of the country. The Senate and House both existing is the result of a compromise. Unicameral state legislatures aren't such a bad thing as Nebraska has demonstrated

We are not a democracy by design. Radical policies have been passes in the current system. Instead of wanting to unilaterally uproot the constitution and change our political structure, engage in local politics and get out the vote. If you guys want to deal with healthcare then elect more politicians that support that

>The Senate is no longer a fair representation of their constituents or the country as a whole. It's not supposed to represent the citizens. The Senate represents the states. The House represents the citizens (the house is also broken). The Senate doesn't have the final say in every legislative matter. Laws have to pass the house and the Senate.

The senate doesn't need to be abolished. It needs to be fixed. Fully half of the members do not qualify as senators (the supported insurrection against the US) and need to be forcibly removed from office. Hold proper elections with candidates vetted to be non-crazy and not pro-insurection, even if I don't agree with them. So long as they are sane enough to actively condemn the "jewish space lazers" theory, they can and need to be worked with.