5 ms·

Remember as well that the Senate was intended as a sort of administrative body, with each states senators being selected by the state government...not via popul

Remember as well that the Senate was intended as a sort of administrative body, with each states senators being selected by the state government...not via popular election. In my estimation, the removal of that aspect diluted the original concept to some degree.

ddebernardy 7y ago
It could be done like in Germany without the spirit of the Senate being lost. Something like 2 representatives plus some number that depends on the population.
- axaxs 7y ago
  Neat idea. Maybe we could give it a name depicting its function, like say, a house of representatives...
  - ddebernardy 7y ago
    It's not the same. The House of Representatives is intended to represent the people. The point of the upper house is to represent the States. There's no reason why there shouldn't be some weight thrown in based on some objective criteria like population. The way it works in Germany is every Lander has 3 seats; they then add up to 3 extra seats based on the population. This over-represents the smaller states too, but not to the point where small states can block the whole country like in the US Senate.
    - axaxs 7y ago
      So, of course my comment was tongue in cheek, but not completely. In order to get states to agree to unify, they had to give them incentive in representation. Remember that Germany is the size of a US state. It would be more akin to trying to unify all of west Europe as a country. Would Denmark join if they knew they'd get zero representation based of population?
      - ddebernardy 7y ago
        The European Parliament assigns seats to member states based on population, but the European Council gives one vote per state. So the answer is kind of -- they basically did join, in spite of odd representation mechanics. And FWIW I think the Council (and its majority voting rules) is as much in need for reform in this respect as the US Senate.
- jakeogh 7y ago
  Germany lost free speech long ago, along with many other things we take for granted. If they are a model, it's what not to do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZhVq1M3bhs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZhVq1M3bhs
  - FeeJai 7y ago
    As a German, this makes me wanna cry. The eastern part has taken over the published opinion and political culture after the reunuification, even though formally the eastern republic dissolved while its states joined the western federal government
edoo 7y ago
The 17th amendment completely diluted the intent and blew open the doors to the special interest play field. It will likely be one of the primary reasons we collapse.
- jrs235 7y ago
  The Constitution is/was a governing document amongst how multiple States would collectively operate. The republic has been lost. State governments no longer have representation in the federal government.
jquery 7y ago
<del>Given our current status as a superpower,</del> I’m not so quick to judge federalism as an “obviously bad idea”. The balance between the House and Senate is a compromise that prevents the federal government from running roughshod over individual states, while still giving the larger states more of a voice. Federalism, in theory, improves the ability of local people to govern their local affairs, and treats states as semi-sovereign. The Senate is essential as a check on federal power over statehood.
- lultimouomo 7y ago
  > Given our current status as a superpower, I’m not so quick to judge federalism as an “obviously bad idea”. This is going to make one hell of an argument for Chinese communism in a few years.
  - jquery 7y ago
    Touché. I still like federalism, though.
    - edoo 7y ago
      People like all sorts of things that aren't good for them.

ddebernardy 7y ago

It could be done like in Germany without the spirit of the Senate being lost. Something like 2 representatives plus some number that depends on the population.

axaxs 7y ago
Neat idea. Maybe we could give it a name depicting its function, like say, a house of representatives...
- ddebernardy 7y ago
  It's not the same. The House of Representatives is intended to represent the people. The point of the upper house is to represent the States. There's no reason why there shouldn't be some weight thrown in based on some objective criteria like population. The way it works in Germany is every Lander has 3 seats; they then add up to 3 extra seats based on the population. This over-represents the smaller states too, but not to the point where small states can block the whole country like in the US Senate.
  - axaxs 7y ago
    So, of course my comment was tongue in cheek, but not completely. In order to get states to agree to unify, they had to give them incentive in representation. Remember that Germany is the size of a US state. It would be more akin to trying to unify all of west Europe as a country. Would Denmark join if they knew they'd get zero representation based of population?
    - ddebernardy 7y ago
      The European Parliament assigns seats to member states based on population, but the European Council gives one vote per state. So the answer is kind of -- they basically did join, in spite of odd representation mechanics. And FWIW I think the Council (and its majority voting rules) is as much in need for reform in this respect as the US Senate.
jakeogh 7y ago
Germany lost free speech long ago, along with many other things we take for granted. If they are a model, it's what not to do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZhVq1M3bhs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZhVq1M3bhs
- FeeJai 7y ago
  As a German, this makes me wanna cry. The eastern part has taken over the published opinion and political culture after the reunuification, even though formally the eastern republic dissolved while its states joined the western federal government

edoo 7y ago

The 17th amendment completely diluted the intent and blew open the doors to the special interest play field. It will likely be one of the primary reasons we collapse.

jrs235 7y ago
The Constitution is/was a governing document amongst how multiple States would collectively operate. The republic has been lost. State governments no longer have representation in the federal government.

jquery 7y ago

<del>Given our current status as a superpower,</del> I’m not so quick to judge federalism as an “obviously bad idea”. The balance between the House and Senate is a compromise that prevents the federal government from running roughshod over individual states, while still giving the larger states more of a voice. Federalism, in theory, improves the ability of local people to govern their local affairs, and treats states as semi-sovereign. The Senate is essential as a check on federal power over statehood.

lultimouomo 7y ago
> Given our current status as a superpower, I’m not so quick to judge federalism as an “obviously bad idea”. This is going to make one hell of an argument for Chinese communism in a few years.
- jquery 7y ago
  Touché. I still like federalism, though.
  - edoo 7y ago
    People like all sorts of things that aren't good for them.