"Forgive my impassioned OP, but I have very strong views on government. — Noah Te Stroete

Yeah... well, don't we all.

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

I don't understand your animus toward the states. Most countries subdivide themselves into provinces, states, counties, or some such. There are benefits: One big one is that states and federal government have separate, delegated and reserved, powers.

In a varied population, states can carry out collective government closer to the wishes of a smaller number of people than can occur on the national level. 5 million Wisconsinites vs. 300 million Americans. A number of states, across the northern part, are populated by people who ore or less LIKE the state, and invest the state as a vehicle of the collective will. The state is the means by which they achieve better education, health, and general well-being than other states do.

The states across the south have disliked the state from the get-go. They didn't like other states, and they didn't trust their own state. Breaking things down further, they didn't trust their county governments or city governments either. They saw the state as interference in their private prerogatives to do whatever the hell they wanted to do. As a consequence of this attitude, their stats on health, education, and generally well-being suck.

The states are free to experiment. Nebraska has a single legislative house (unicameral). Some state constitutions are better guarantees of individual liberties than the national constitution. States can legislate as they see fit on matters where they have precedence over the federal government. Voting laws vary. Minneapolis recently began ranked voting (first choice, second choice...)

NO system of government is perfect. Ours is improvable, but it isn't a total disaster, either. — Noah Te Stroete

NO system of government is perfect. Ours is improvable, but it isn't a total disaster, either. — "Bitter

Of course. The state governments are redundant because there are already county and municipal governments. Some states are better than others, and this all boils down to tastes ultimately, but if we got rid of them, then maybe we would have more influence over the federal government, and getting rid of or reforming the Senate would go a long way to making the government more accountable to the people. This is, of course, my preference, and it’s not up to me.

A little research wouldn't hurt either of you. Try "the great compromise," or "the Connecticut compromise." Or Madison's notes to the convention. So much for the history. But I doubt that you will allow facts to distract you, especially since you have already decided what they are. I trust neither of you are Americans. If you are, shame on you! Playing with history as your private toy is not an innocent game, far the better to study it to know it, and then to understand it, rather than to "understand" it before you know what it is.

Are we playing the jack off to the founding fathers game?

Shame on you! I am an American and you are bordering on calling me unAmerican. I’m sure you’ve read “A People’s History of the United States” and “ The Untold History of the United States.” I suppose you’re an historian , too. I’ve only read six US history books and taken two history classes in college, so I suppose as an historian you’re better qualified than me.

I happen to have a print of “Washington Crossing the Delaware” in my living room.

Do you know what gerrymandering is and who’s the best at it? Republicans. — Noah Te Stroete

Yes. I do. What about it? Unless it’s based on racial or equal protection (5a/14a) type issues, partisan gerrymandering is a mundane political issue condoned by the constitution; congress can use its elections clause if they don’t like its results.

In any case, what’s gerrymandering have to do with republicans and the near impossibility of their changing the senate structure?

As to the balance of your post, you’re building a scaffold of non sequiturs.

This goes way back to the 1870s when right wing judges declared corporations as having the rights of persons, — Noah Te Stroete

yes corporate personhood is another horror. and the fact that corporate charters are no longer seen as priviledges that can be revoked. Conservatives along with liberals should be horrified at this change in the way corporations are viewed. Conservatives right off the bat since it goes against precautions put in by the founders, men who were nto just concerned about big government, but also bit private, having seen what things like the East India Company were capable of.

In any case, what’s gerrymandering have to do with republicans and the near impossibility of their changing the senate structure? — Reshuffle

Go back and read the progression of what I said, and come back when your reading comprehension improves.

Yes. I do. What about it? Unless it’s based on racial or equal protection (5a/14a) type issues, partisan gerrymandering is a mundane political issue condoned by the constitution; congress can use its elections clause if they don’t like its results. — Reshuffle

Gerrymandering as used by Republicans is based on race and socioeconomic class. Gerrymandering as the Republicans use it is only condoned by the Constitution because of right wing judges and justices.

You say the current demographics help Republicans. This is patently false. My point is that the only reason Republicans have the power they have is because of gerrymandering and suppressing the vote of minorities and the poor. If they could, they’d do much more in order to gain more power. If they could go back to legislatures electing them, they would. The Gentry electing the Gentry. That’s the case already with money in politics, something Republicans and right wing justices are responsible for. Hence, the will of the people isn’t being represented.

e whole point is that the senate is unrepresentative, and fails even by those standards. — StreetlightX

Its representative of state governments, which is its purpose. If the US wants to be more democratic, then changing the nature of states so that a senate is no longer needed would be the step to take. Remember that states vote to ratify amendments after they're ratified by the House and Senate.

States are an important unit of government in the US since it's foundation. That's why it's a union of states.

If you mean by “current demographics” white people, then you’re right that they’re the majority. You’re wrong however that they all vote for Republicans. Especially not the women who make up more of the demographic than the men. With women and minorities, demographics favor Democrats. Come back when you get your facts straight.

Are we playing the jack off to the founding fathers game? — Maw

Are we playing let's ignore history because we don't like the current party in power?

Are we playing let's ignore history because we don't like the current party in power? — Marchesk

History of oppression is what favors the Republicans.

History of oppression is what favors the Republicans. — Noah Te Stroete

And what does that have to do with how the US government is structured? Republicans didn't exist at the foundation, and if you go back far enough, they were the party wanting to abolish slavery.

They currently have a majority in the Senate and occupy the presidency, but that can change over a couple elections. It's always going back and forth between the two parties that matter.

Its representative of state governments, which is its purpose — Marchesk

Lol, you think the job of a representative democracy is to represent governments.

I knew you would bring up Lincoln. Lol. That’s when Republicans were more progressive and the Democrats were racist. Check your history.

I’m talking about the CURRENT Republican Party. They have benefited greatly from oppressive policies, whether current or from the history of right wing judges.

Lol, you think the job of a representative democracy is to represent governments. — StreetlightX

The Senate represents the states, so yes in that case. Are you talking about in theory?

I’m talking about the CURRENT Republican Party. They have benefited greatly from oppressive policies, whether current or from the history of right wing judges. — Noah Te Stroete

Okay, but what does that have to do with the Senate as an institution? Control of the Senate will swing back to the Democratic party in time.

Are you talking about in theory? — Marchesk

This entire thread is supposed to be about theory. History came up as a confusion of the intent of the thread. People here invoked history as if people didn’t make poor decisions way back when. That’s the religion of America that I was talking about.

Yes, and the point is that the current set-up of 'state representation' is itself not representative of the nation - that is, is undemocratic. Saying that 'well it's representative because it represents the states' is just tautological bullshit that justifies nothing. You may as well say that the government represents the government, therefore, it is representative, so there's nothing to complain about. Spurious bullshit.

Even if we all agree that the Senate is bad because being undemocratic is inherently immoral or something, then what? You do realize the states have to ratify the Constitutional amendment to abolish the Senate, assuming a majority of senators from either party would ratify that, removing their political influence.

Control of the Senate will swing back to the Democratic party in time. — Marchesk

Doesn’t matter because the majority party in the Senate needs 60 votes, something that is very rare in recent history. Given that each state gets two Senators regardless of their populations and gerrymandering and voter suppression, the will of the people isn’t being done.

Saying that 'well it's representative because it represents the states' is just tautological bullshit that justifies nothing. — StreetlightX

It justifies the state as a fundamental unit of government in addition to the Federal government. That's the whole point of the United States of America. Maybe someday the citizens of enough states will want to remove that unit and then the Senate becomes unnecessary.

You do realize the States have to ratify the Constitutional amendment to abolish the Senate, assuming a majority of senators from either party would ratify that, removing their political influence. — Marchesk

That’s my point!

At this point the Senate acts as a legislative filter. Do you see that as advantageous?

It was originally intended to protect small states from the dominance of the big ones.

It was originally intended to protect small states from the dominance of the big ones. — frank

That was the purported argument. The reality is that it protected slave plantation owners from the more populated cities of the North.

So it's sheer existence justifies itself? Are you even trying?

That was the purported argument. The reality is that it protected slave plantation owners from the more populated cities of the North. — Noah Te Stroete

So you're saying if there wasn't an institution of slavery, there would have been no senate? That the founders created the senate solely on behalf of the slave holders?

The way I look at it is that if the EU formed a similar union of state countries, then a Senate would be a way for smaller European countries to offset the major influence of countries like Germany, otherwise, Germany and France are dominating policy.

That was the purported argument. The reality is that it protected slave plantation owners from the more populated cities of the North. — Noah Te Stroete

No