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

No, there are reasons for it to exist which have to do with the US being a union of states. Maybe the need for state governments will change someday.

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. — Marchesk

I’m not telling Europe how to run itself. The US states were never countries, though.

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? — Marchesk

That’s exactly the reason for the Senate and the electoral college.

No — frank

Yes

Weather or not the US is or is not a union of states says nothing to whether the current set-up of state representation is democratically representative.

You may as well argue that because The Soviet Union was a union of Soviets, that it's political organisation was well justified.

Weather or not the US is or is not a union of states says nothing to whether the current set-up of state representation is democratically representative. — StreetlightX

Fine, it's not democratically representative of the population. That's the House. Next question is whether all political institutions should be democratically representative, since the implicit tone of the OP is that the Senate being undemocratic is bad.

Weather or not the US is or is not a union of states says nothing to whether the current set-up of state representation is democratically representative.

You may as well argue that because The Soviet Union was a union of Soviets, that it's political organisation was well justified.
now — StreetlightX

You’re absolutely, unequivocally correct. People get bogged down in US history likes it’s beyond reproach. Not only is it a religious stance, but it has nothing to do with the OP. It’s a distraction.

That’s exactly the reason for the Senate and the electoral college. — Noah Te Stroete

That's not what I recall. I guess we can google some historical analysis or use the Founders words to settle this.

but it has nothing to do with the OP. It’s a distraction. — Noah Te Stroete

So the OP seems to be arguing that undemocratic political institutions are bad. That would be more appropriate for a philosophical discussion than arguing over history or politics.

use the Founders words to settle this. — Marchesk

That’s no good. They talked about protecting minorities from majority rule. They were talking about slave owners. You have to read between the lines.

So the OP seems to be arguing that undemocratic political institutions are bad. That would be more appropriate for a philosophical discussion than arguing over history or politics. — Marchesk

I didn’t want to argue about history. I got sucked into it. This was supposed to be a political philosophy thread.

This was supposed to be a political philosophy thread. — Noah Te Stroete

So what would be the ideal setup of the US government? Abolish the Senate and the House takes over both roles. Abolish the Electoral College. Get rid of the states ratifying amendments.

Would that work?

Then next would be updating the Judicial Branch. Federal judges run for election and have to be approved by the House when nominated for SCOTUS?

So what would be the ideal setup of the US government? Abolish the Senate and the House takes over both roles. Abolish the Electoral College. Get rid of the states ratifying amendments.

Would that work? — Marchesk

A country supposedly founded on inherent freedom for all persons (initially white men) suggests that these free people aren’t truly free if the government isn’t accountable to them. I don’t believe that the Senate is accountable to the majority of the US population.

Fine, it's not democratically representative of the population. That's the House. Next question is whether all political institutions should be democratically representative — Marchesk

The question of the OP is in the title. Seems like we both agree the answer is in the affirmative.

The question of the OP is in the title. Seems like we both agree the answer is in the affirmative. — StreetlightX

Then it's not much of a philosophical discussion.

Start your own thread.

Then it's not much of a philosophical discussion. — Marchesk

Not as it stands now.

free people aren’t truly free if the government isn’t accountable to them. I don’t believe that the Senate is accountable to the majority of the US population. — Noah Te Stroete

It doesn't seem like the current president is either. He can get voted out next election, but so can senators.

We can also ask how democratic is a two party system? You have two parties representing the wishes of several hundred million people. If we really want to get down to it, how democratic is the US? Federal Judges are appointed and serve for life. The President is almost above the law. The CIA and some other elements of government act almost outside the law. The military answers to the President as their commander in chief, not the people.

And the of course there is the influence of corporations and special interests. Successful elections require money.

The US government has a lot of features that are intended to protect the country from mob mentality. Yes, they're anti-democratic. Pure democracies don't usually last very long.

So then saying the Senate is anti-democratic isn't saying much by itself. The argument would need to be that the Senate is anti-democratic in a way that's bad for governing, unlike the other anti-democratic parts of US government.

Or the argument is that being anti-democratic is bad full stop, so we need to try a more pure form of democracy, which doesn't stop with abolishing the Senate. But the mob rule would need to be addressed.

The argument would need to be that the Senate is anti-democratic in a way that's bad for governing, unlike the other anti-democratic parts of US government. — Marchesk

If the Senate has a tendency to squash bad legislation, then it's protecting the people from the government. Since the senate is usually made up of older, experienced politicians, it has potential value.

the USA is the oldest continuous (with some minor qualifications) form of government on the planet. — tim wood

Pretty sure the UK’s is older.

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. — StreetlightX

It’s pretty crazy that Mitch can just refuse to hear bills passed by the House.

Pretty sure the UK’s is older. — Michael

No

Also, the Isle of Man.

U.S. comes in at seventh on this list.

http://www.oldest.org/politics/democracies/

Not all continuous though.

No — frank

Why do you say that? If you count the Cromwell years as a break in government then the UK’s has been continuous since 1660.

Why do you say that? If you count the Cromwell years as a break in government then the UK’s has been continuous since 1660. — Michael

Sorry, I thought Tim had mentioned that the US has the world's oldest in-use constitution. He said something else.

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. — Noah Te Stroete

Last try: the current demographics with respect to state legislatures are such that republicans control the vast majority of them. Plain fact.

Accordingly, the republicans would benefit by altering the current senate election structure (direct election) were it returned to its original process ( state election.) I’m sorry if you can’t grasp this simple concept.

The rest of your commentary is noise and not worth extra bandwidth.

Accordingly, the republicans would benefit by altering the current senate election structure (direct election) were it returned to its original process ( state election.) I’m sorry if you can’t grasp this simple concept. — Reshuffle

No shit. They need 38 state legislatures and 67 Senators. I already said this.