Is anyone tired of senators holding so much power?

[Rman]

I didn't want to derail the stickied thread, but I'm kinda tired of a same group of senators always holding the keys to major legislation.  I don't begrudge these senators.  Some are very principled and rational, such as Senator Snowe of Maine, and before he switched parties, Senator Specter was another key swing senator, whose name always came up in major legislation initiatives. But it's always the same old story. 

[brawndolicious]

I think that there should be a senate, or just a "higher council", that makes the final vote on a bill that's proposed.  The bullshit comes from how California senators need millions of votes to win and, as Cohen mentions, a Wyoming senator probably needs less than 100,000.

I think the fairest system is probably that the President gets to appoint a fraction and the remainder are elected by the House.

[Human Snorenado]

Senate should be abolished total. 

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

Senate should be abolished total. 

So you're in favor of giving Ron Paul more power?

[Human Snorenado]

Senate should be abolished total. 

So you're in favor of giving Ron Paul more power?

Ron Paul has no power.  He had no power when the Republicans were in the majority, either, because they're interested in lining their pockets and he's interested in advancing his nutbar ideology.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

Senate should be abolished total. 

So you're in favor of giving Ron Paul more power?

Ron Paul has no power.  He had no power when the Republicans were in the majority, either, because they're interested in lining their pockets and he's interested in advancing his nutbar ideology.

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why we need to eliminate the Senate, which while there are some feet draggers, there are considerably more sane people in proportion.  In the House, you're getting people like Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann who can and will rile up enough support from Republicans and conservative Democrats.  With a Senate, her power is officially diluted.

[Mandark]

Rick Santorum, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Jim Bunning, Ted Stevens, James Inhofe, Jim DeMint.

Bachmann, like Bob Dornan before her, is a sideshow.  Sure she's crazy, but outside her vote (which is a given) she's got no power.  You can ignore her and all the other flamboyant nutbars, and that leaves you with a deliberative body that's just as capable as figuring shit out as the Senate, only without the completely insane institutional veto-points and representative distortion.

We have the Senate because the founding fathers all grew up with the House of Lords and wound up copying the idea.  It's dumber now than it was then, because of the huge population differences between states and the acceptance of the non-filibuster filibuster.

[Akala]

I kind of like the fact that all states are represented equally in the senate. there needs to  be some form of the legislature with that kind of focus. I just have never been a total fan of the bicameral system.

when I was younger, I used to think that the whole notion of representative democracy was stupid because of the fact technology was to the point where we could have a true majority rule model...pretty much impossible back in the day, but possible today (dismissing shades of legitimacy for the moment). at uni, I liked to think about basic notions of representative democracies, and leaned towards the belief that a true democracy was much more in line with the spirit of the 'founders' (lack of a better word). I never really bought into the counterarguments, although there were numerous convincing ones. I was idealistic. the five or so years since have totally soured me on the matter. when you are around academics all day, and even to some extent looking on message boards, people seem generally reasonable, if not intelligent. life outside of the campus scrapped that one. 

the internet also got (somewhat) dumber as the technological barrier of entry diminished. I think it's more representative of the general population nowadays.

I genuinely used to think that people who argued for the merits of representative democracy were just being elitist, but see now that they were right.

in a totally ideal world, I would like a third branch of the legislature that would be just a huge fucking poll, but don't really think it's feasible anymore. there are just too many variables involved, and would be too easy to game.

[Human Snorenado]

Uh, no it's fucking stupid.  Wyoming shouldn't have as much say in the direction of the country as New York.  Fuck Wyoming.

[Mandark]

I kind of like the fact that all states are represented equally in the senate. there needs to  be some form of the legislature with that kind of focus.

But why?

You can argue that some portions of society are typically disenfranchised and need institutions tilted in their favor.  That's what Lani Guinier said before she got railroaded out of DC.

But why do this for an arbitrary political unit like the state?  Just because the lines got drawn where they did doesn't mean North Dakota inherently deserves as much of a say as California, irrespective of how many actual human beings fall in their borders.

[Human Snorenado]

I got it- each state gets two Senators, but each Senator gets 1 vote per million people in their state.  Problem solved!

[Oblivion]

when I was younger, I used to think that the whole notion of representative democracy was stupid because of the fact technology was to the point where we could have a true majority rule model...pretty much impossible back in the day, but possible today (dismissing shades of legitimacy for the moment).

Yeah, that's worked pretty well so far.

[Fragamemnon]

terrible anti-democratic institution . The UK neutered their House of Lords years ago, I'm amazed that we haven't done the same to ours as well.

Most of the consolidation of executive power over legislature over the past few administrations is directly due to the inability of the legislative branch to do anything, with the Senate in particular holding everything up. If it wasn't so dysfunctional we might-like it or not-have a reasonably responsive government.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

terrible anti-democratic institution . The UK neutered their House of Lords years ago, I'm amazed that we haven't done the same to ours as well.

Most of the consolidation of executive power over legislature over the past few administrations is directly due to the inability of the legislative branch to do anything, with the Senate in particular holding everything up. If it wasn't so dysfunctional we might-like it or not-have a reasonably responsive government.

I get what you're saying but there have been plenty of fast response Senates.  Bills getting held up seems more like a problem of running through two gauntlets instead of one, not because the Senate sucks more than the House.

[Human Snorenado]

No, the Senate definitely sucks more.  With the ability to filibuster and place holds on shit for no reason whatsoever, it's a wonder anything gets done in that piece of shit place.

[Mandark]

I don't think there's ever been a situation where the Senate and House were controlled by the same party and the Senate acted faster than than House.

IIRC, it was the Senate that LBJ had to cajole more to get things done, especially on civil rights but including other parts of the Great Society.  It's certainly what's gumming up the works now.

The parliamentary rules favoring stasis have gotten stronger, too.  There are a ton of points at which a minority of Senators, or sometimes just one Senator, can bring things entirely to a halt.

[brawndolicious]

I got it- each state gets two Senators, but each Senator gets 1 vote per million people in their state.  Problem solved!

So what do you do with the 15 states with less than 2 million?

[Akala]

I kind of like the fact that all states are represented equally in the senate. there needs to  be some form of the legislature with that kind of focus.

But why?

You can argue that some portions of society are typically disenfranchised and need institutions tilted in their favor.  That's what Lani Guinier said before she got railroaded out of DC.

But why do this for an arbitrary political unit like the state?  Just because the lines got drawn where they did doesn't mean North Dakota inherently deserves as much of a say as California, irrespective of how many actual human beings fall in their borders.

I'm just saying I like a forum where all states have an equal amount of representation. not saying it's anything better or worse than that. I mean, fuck wyoming. but what if wyoming has a regional need? two people out of a hundred have a better chance getting what they need across there than in the house. that whole region could band together to get something done much more easily than in the house. this is pretty theoretical though.

the mechanics are a bit borked at the moment though. logically the house should hold far more sway than the senate (the house of lords parallel is a pretty standard comparison), but the amount of fuckwits that get into the house is a bit unsettling. i'd say adjusting the term limits for both sides may shake things up but probably not.

[Phoenix Dark]

Bachman is hotter than Palin imo

that's all I have to say in this thread