Is the US Senate an inherently unrepresentative institution?

RegularGuy

In the US, each state gets two Senators no matter how many people reside in that state. California with tens of millions more people than Alaska gets two Senators and Alaska gets two Senators. How exactly is that representative?! How is the Senate ever going to reflect the will of the people?! The same question can be applied to the electoral college. Also, an amendment to the Constitution has to be ratified by two thirds of the states, which makes it nearly impossible to change the Senate, not to mention that it would never get the needed votes in the Senate itself as the Senators from the small states would never go for it. The House of Representatives is also unrepresentative due to gerrymandering and the right wing judges who uphold this unconstitutional practice. Voters are supposed to choose their representatives. Politicians are not supposed to pick their voters!

Will the US ever be representative given these institutional flaws?

Or do you really believe this is a democratic representative system?

Or do you think democratic representation is overrated?

Thank you for your consideration.

deletedusercb

I think worse undermining of democracy comes from campaign finance, lobbying, consolidation of the media, and revolving doors between industy and government, for example in oversight of industry. It's an oligarchy. I don't think the House is much better or better than the Senate, despite be more numerically correct. The two party system is also very damaging, especially, when for example, the Democratic Party itself will pick a candidate and mess with Bernie, democracy be damned.

RegularGuy

I don't think the House is much better or better than the Senate, despite be more numerically correct. — Coben

This goes back to my point about politicians picking their voters instead of the other way around. Also because of money in politics.

. The two party system is also very damaging, especially — Coben

Agreed. Winner take all elections are also a flaw of the Constitution.

I think worse undermining of democracy comes from campaign finance, lobbying, consolidation of the media, and revolving doors between industy and government, for example in oversight of industry. — Coben

This goes way back to the 1870s when right wing judges declared corporations as having the rights of persons, and then made much worse by the Citizens United case this century.

Maw

The Senate is an extremely undemocratic system and we should get rid of it

RegularGuy

↪Coben

I edited my reply to you because it wasn’t formatted correctly. I should really use my laptop instead of my iPhone. I agree with you.

RegularGuy

↪Maw

agreed

RegularGuy

Just think of how easily the gun problem in this country could be solved if we actually lived in a democracy.

tim wood

All this ranting underscores that none of you, apparently, has any understanding of the history of the writing of the US Constitution. Interesting fact: the USA is the oldest continuous (with some minor qualifications) form of government on the planet. Is the Constitution perfect? No one pretends it is. But it is a constitution, not a mathematical treatise. That is, it is neither for once and for all all right or all wrong, but it does provide for its own correction and adjustment.

And no one speaking other than informally supposes that the US is a democracy. The Athenians tried that and found it problematic. The US is a federal republic with a representative form of government - which includes the presidential election. Most folks castigate the electoral college - but understand neither it nor its purpose. It exists to negative the popular vote, should the populace elect a bad man. We did, and they didn't. So it's not their purpose that's a defect, but their practice!

BC

↪Noah Te Stroete

@Tim Wood just said what I was going to say. Another thing that constitutional critics forget is that when the constitution was written, the USA was pretty small. there were only 13 states on the eastern seaboard, New Hampshire through Georgia. Vermont, Maine, and Florida were not among the first 13.

People who criticize the government (our government, your government...) forget what the purpose of government is, per Karl Marx. The government is a committee to organize the affairs of the bourgeoisie (rich people, businesses, land owners, etc.). It is not there to guarantee YOU or ME happiness. If you are well fed and content with your life, then thank your lucky stars.

BC

Go Reds, smash state. Crush the Corporations.

Marchesk

n the US, each state gets two Senators no matter how many people reside in that state. California with tens of millions more people than Alaska gets two Senators and Alaska gets two Senators. How exactly is that democratic?! How is the Senate ever going to reflect the will of the people?! — Noah Te Stroete

The House represents the people, the Senate represents the states. That's because America is a union of states.

The Senate is an extremely undemocratic system and we should get rid of it — Maw

The US government was never meant to be entirely democratic. It's a representative republic with a Constitution and an unelected Judicial Branch.

RegularGuy

@tim wood @Bitter Crank

America is not a religion. America is a nation of people. Invoking Ancient Athens is a straw man against what I was calling for. The electoral college was meant to protect property owners and slave owners. The Senate was meant to protect the elites of the states instead of the general citizenry. Your religious attitudes toward the Constitution clouds your judgment.

@Bitter Crank, yes my belly is full, thank goodness. Forgive me for wanting a government that functions for more people instead of the elites.

@tim wood, you’re either ignorant or an asshole.

RegularGuy

State governments are redundant and only serve to further divide the nation.

Forgive my empassioned OP, but I have very strong views on government.

tim wood

tim wood, you’re either ignorant or an asshole. — Noah Te Stroete

Must be the asshole, because on this topic I am not ignorant. But where does that leave you? It leaves you where you would not be, if you knew the history a little better.

RegularGuy

if you knew the history a little better. — tim wood

I know the history quite well. It appears that you don’t. I don’t think you’re an asshole. I think you’re just ignorant.

Reshuffle

“Also, an amendment to the Constitution has to be ratified by two thirds of the states, which makes it nearly impossible to change the Senate, not to mention that it would never get the needed votes in the Senate itself as the Senators from the small states would never go for it.”

Huh?
1) an amendment to be ratified requires three-fourths of the states’ approval; it’s two-thirds in ( of) Congress.
2) “impossible” seems an odd adjective since the current method of direct election was, in fact, eagerly changed and welcomed by the senate, following the antecedent and original process of state ( legislature) elections.

Maw

The US government was never meant to be entirely democratic. It's a representative republic with a Constitution and an unelected Judicial Branch. — Marchesk

Of course it was never meant to be entirely democratic as it was constructed by slave-owners who subsequently only allowed property owning white men to vote. With time, we extended suffrage. When a state with 500K people has the same representative power as a state with 11M that's extremely undemocratic and should be abolished. There is no valid justification for the existence of the Senate. What does it even mean to "represent the states" as opposed to "the people"? Does land have a say in policy?

All this ranting underscores that none of you, apparently, has any understanding of the history of the writing of the US Constitution. Interesting fact: the USA is the oldest continuous (with some minor qualifications) form of government on the planet. Is the Constitution perfect? No one pretends it is. But it is a constitution, not a mathematical treatise. That is, it is neither for once and for all all right or all wrong, but it does provide for its own correction and adjustment.

And no one speaking other than informally supposes that the US is a democracy. The Athenians tried that and found it problematic. The US is a federal republic with a representative form of government - which includes the presidential election. Most folks castigate the electoral college - but understand neither it nor its purpose. It exists to negative the popular vote, should the populace elect a bad man. We did, and they didn't. So it's not their purpose that's a defect, but their practice! — tim wood

Absolute jabberwocky.

RegularGuy

1) an amendment to be ratified requires three-fourths of the states’ approval; it’s two-thirds in ( of) Congress.
2) “impossible” seems an odd adjective since the current method of direct election was, in fact, eagerly changed and welcomed by the senate, following the antecedent and original process of state ( legislature) elections. — Reshuffle

You’re right. It is 38 states that have to ratify it. Misspoke.

It would be nearly impossible to change the structure of the Senate. This is so because it would hurt Republicans, the same reason why Republicans make it harder for people to vote. So, yes, it is NEARLY impossible.

RegularGuy

Absolute jabberwocky. — Maw

My thoughts exactly, but I prefer the Wisconsinite term “hogwash.”

Reshuffle

“There is no valid justification for the existence of the Senate. “

The father of the constitution, Madison, would disagree. He offers multiple valid justifications for the senate in The Federalist Papers 62 and 63.

Personally, I think he struck gold when espousing the notion of its deliberative mode, by virtue of six year terms, as a tool to counterbalance the frenzy and passions of the hour.

RegularGuy

↪Reshuffle

If you want to quote someone, just highlight the text and click the “quote” link. Then they get a notification that you responded to them. :smile:

RegularGuy

The father of the constitution, Madison, would disagree. He offers multiple valid justifications for the senate in The Federalist Papers 62 and 63.

Personally, I think he struck gold when espousing the notion of its deliberative mode, by virtue of six year terms, as a tool to counterbalance the frenzy and passions of the hour. — Reshuffle

Madison was trying to ensure the rights of the gentry, the small minority of people of which he was one.

I believe six year terms is okay, but one representative body with four year terms would be better.

Maw

The father of the constitution, Madison, would disagree. He offers multiple valid justifications for the senate in The Federalist Papers 62 and 63. — Reshuffle

oh ok

Streetlight

It's depressingly hilarious to read responses here which blame the people for not being good enough for their democracy. As for the semantic dodge that the US is a republic and functions as a representative democracy, well, the whole point is that the senate is unrepresentative, and fails even by those standards.

Reshuffle

It would be nearly impossible to change the structure of the Senate. This is so because it would hurt Republicans, the same reason why Republicans make it harder for people to vote. So, yes, it is NEARLY impossible. — Noah Te Stroete

First, thanks for the quote tip.

Secondly, you say changing the senate structure would be nearly impossible since it would hurt the republicans. I’m sorry, but demographics nationally refute your proposition.

The original process for senate elections was via state legislatures. The GOP currently controls 30 of them; maybe 31. Around there. Those numbers will little change in short course.

Thus, there is an exceedingly valid reason for the GOP to change the current structure-i.e., to return to state elections as a more secure means of being elected.

RegularGuy

Secondly, you say changing the senate structure would be nearly impossible since it would hurt the republicans. I’m sorry, but demographics nationally refute your proposition.

The original process for senate elections was via state legislatures. The GOP currently controls 30 of them; maybe 31. Around there. Those numbers will little change in short course.

Thus, there is an exceedingly valid reason for the GOP to change the current structure-i.e., to return to state elections as a more secure means of being elected. — Reshuffle

I don’t understand your argument to refute my claim. I’m talking about the current state of politics in this country.

RegularGuy

↪Reshuffle

If the Republicans could gerrymander and suppress the vote enough to get the needed ratification, they would. As it stands now, their methods only work so well.

Reshuffle

I don’t understand your argument to refute my claim. I’m talking about the current state of politics in this country. — Noah Te Stroete

Your claim was that changing the senate ( structure) is nearly impossible since it would hurt the republicans.

Well, allow me to simplify how current political demographics refute your claim: if changing the senate structure serves to benefit the GOP- as it surely would (due to current demographics) were it changed to its original process- then why would it be nearly impossible for republicans to change it?

RegularGuy

↪Reshuffle

To go back to the legislatures electing them? Is that your question? Because they have to go to extreme lengths to hold onto the power they have. They only work so well when the vast majority of the populace are against their policies. If they could gerrymander and suppress the vote to get 38 state legislatures and 67 seats in the Senate, you’d bet your ass that’s just what they’d do.

Reshuffle

Because they have to go to extreme lengths to hold onto the power they have. — Noah Te Stroete

I believe this comment is the source of confusion. My point is that the republicans would have to do very little to hold onto their senate power inasmuch as they, unlike the democrats, could offer an amendment to have the states elect the senate (ors). There’s no impossibility in the least to their doing that.

Demographics are their friends, their road to victory. They control the state legislatures by a vast margin. If you dislike the GOP, you best hope the current structure remains status quo.

RegularGuy

↪Reshuffle

Do you know what gerrymandering is and who’s the best at it? Republicans. The fact that red states are usually the smaller, less educated states with low voter turnout helps the Republicans have their power.

Is the US Senate an inherently unrepresentative institution?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions