9 ms·

Why not just take it a step further and get rid of the Senate? The Senate is a far worse democratic representation.

taylodl 4y ago
The Senate represents the state, the House of Representatives represent the people. Each state had an equal voice - 2 senators, just like the people were to have an equal voice (same number of people per representative). The people no longer have equal representation. That's a problem.
- frankbreetz 4y ago
  Doesn't the existence of the Senate make people having equal representation a near impossibility?
  - jrs235 4y ago
    The Senate was equal representation for each State (Government). The House was representation for the People.
    - jrs235 4y ago
      Replying to my own comment... the Senate represents the States who are the parties bound by the laws of the U.S. Government. The House represents the People who would ultimately have to pay (taxes) to fund the U.S. Government. Other than direct crimes against the U.S. Government (think treason) U.S. laws were not meant to apply directly to people, just states. The 14th Amendment created the U.S. Citizen (as opposed to citizens of a state) which was/is a subject of the U.S. Government and is why/how the U.S. Government laws now get applied directly to people.
koheripbal 4y ago
Because then small states would have little reason to remain in the union. Maine, Alaska, Hawaii... what's the point of being a far-off-forgotten small population state to a superpower if the other neighboring nation is offering better protection of my interests? The Senate was designed to ensure that even small states had their interests represented and not drowned out in the tyranny of the majority. The Senate was specifically designed to prevent the challenges faced by the late Roman empire which was constantly putting down far-off remote provincial rebellions. They had to constantly move whole armies from one side of the empire to another putting down one rebellion after another - often supported by the neighboring unfriendly nation. Without the Senate, Russia would have had a much easier time starting "independence" movements in Alaska during the Cold War.
- jhbadger 4y ago
  Lots of countries have states, provinces, departments, and the like each with some degree of local government, but relatively few of them give them so much power at the national level as the US does in its Senate. I would have thought after the Civil War more work would have been done to get people to identify with the US more than with their particular state. If that was done, it doesn't matter how big or small your state is -- the important thing is your vote is the same as everybody else's in the nation.
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    The EU does exactly that with the counsel and the commission. It doesn't make sense to compare the USA as a whole to other, much smaller countries. Federalism doesn't make sense on a small scale.
- divided 4y ago
  I think this might be an argument based on fantasy. The best parallel might be the end of colonialism in different nations, but that’s a stretch. Those territories which declared their independence were often unrepresented (not proportionally represented) and typically gained their independence through war. I don’t think any state or territory of the US would truly dare to face the US military alone. You mention Maine and Alaska which I imagine you believe would join Canada? Canada doesn’t give each territory equal representation. They’ve also not suffered a territory leaving despite the various secession campaigns (US has those too even with the Senate, strange). I think there’s just very little evidence the Senate is some magic fairy dust that keeps our country together when many, many other countries don’t have such a similar body and they’re not all falling to pieces.
  - stuckinhell 4y ago
    Why would it be fantasy ? Most American states are bigger that most European countries ! They absolutely have the resources to do it if they willed it.
    - 4y ago
dahfizz 4y ago
Why have representatives at all? Let the Tyranny of the Majority begin!
- frankbreetz 4y ago
  What is the difference between "The will of the people" and the "Tyranny of the Majority"?
  - divided 4y ago
    The “tyranny of the majority” makes people feel smart when they say it.
  - snapplebobapple 4y ago
    The difference is how long it takes for the minority of people pissed about it to dissipate and for it to become a non issue. As an example, gay marriage was passed at a state level from 2004 to 2015 and the people still butt hurt about it 7 years later are a quickly shrinking, tiny, and largely irrelevant group of orthodox religious types. Politicians who had opposing views are trying really hard to memory hole those opinions and support gay marriage for the most part. Abortion, on the other hand, has grown an increasingly organized, vocal, and politically active instead of dissipating away to a non issue we all largely agree on, which would make it an example of a tyranny of the majority issue.
Ekaros 4y ago
Why not just take a step even further and get rid of states. And when done, why not also simplify things and remove all local democracy. Have everything decided at federal level.
- frankbreetz 4y ago
  Because those things don't impose the will of the minority. There are somethings that a better decided by people familiar with the local circumstances. I would argue a person in Wyoming's vote being worth 65x that of person's in California has no benefit.
  - pauldenton 4y ago
    But that would be in the senate, where each state has 2 representatives. Legislation is started in the House typically, where the number of representatives scales with population.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    Why should some imaginary line decide who gets to vote? Isn't it wrong that people on other side of state decide what happens at the other border. Wouldn't it be better to allow also the people on the other side of the border have fair vote on things.

The Senate represents the state, the House of Representatives represent the people. Each state had an equal voice - 2 senators, just like the people were to have an equal voice (same number of people per representative). The people no longer have equal representation. That's a problem.

frankbreetz 4y ago
Doesn't the existence of the Senate make people having equal representation a near impossibility?
- jrs235 4y ago
  The Senate was equal representation for each State (Government). The House was representation for the People.
  - jrs235 4y ago
    Replying to my own comment... the Senate represents the States who are the parties bound by the laws of the U.S. Government. The House represents the People who would ultimately have to pay (taxes) to fund the U.S. Government. Other than direct crimes against the U.S. Government (think treason) U.S. laws were not meant to apply directly to people, just states. The 14th Amendment created the U.S. Citizen (as opposed to citizens of a state) which was/is a subject of the U.S. Government and is why/how the U.S. Government laws now get applied directly to people.

koheripbal 4y ago

Because then small states would have little reason to remain in the union. Maine, Alaska, Hawaii... what's the point of being a far-off-forgotten small population state to a superpower if the other neighboring nation is offering better protection of my interests? The Senate was designed to ensure that even small states had their interests represented and not drowned out in the tyranny of the majority. The Senate was specifically designed to prevent the challenges faced by the late Roman empire which was constantly putting down far-off remote provincial rebellions. They had to constantly move whole armies from one side of the empire to another putting down one rebellion after another - often supported by the neighboring unfriendly nation. Without the Senate, Russia would have had a much easier time starting "independence" movements in Alaska during the Cold War.

jhbadger 4y ago
Lots of countries have states, provinces, departments, and the like each with some degree of local government, but relatively few of them give them so much power at the national level as the US does in its Senate. I would have thought after the Civil War more work would have been done to get people to identify with the US more than with their particular state. If that was done, it doesn't matter how big or small your state is -- the important thing is your vote is the same as everybody else's in the nation.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  The EU does exactly that with the counsel and the commission. It doesn't make sense to compare the USA as a whole to other, much smaller countries. Federalism doesn't make sense on a small scale.
divided 4y ago
I think this might be an argument based on fantasy. The best parallel might be the end of colonialism in different nations, but that’s a stretch. Those territories which declared their independence were often unrepresented (not proportionally represented) and typically gained their independence through war. I don’t think any state or territory of the US would truly dare to face the US military alone. You mention Maine and Alaska which I imagine you believe would join Canada? Canada doesn’t give each territory equal representation. They’ve also not suffered a territory leaving despite the various secession campaigns (US has those too even with the Senate, strange). I think there’s just very little evidence the Senate is some magic fairy dust that keeps our country together when many, many other countries don’t have such a similar body and they’re not all falling to pieces.
- stuckinhell 4y ago
  Why would it be fantasy ? Most American states are bigger that most European countries ! They absolutely have the resources to do it if they willed it.
  - 4y ago

dahfizz 4y ago

Why have representatives at all? Let the Tyranny of the Majority begin!

frankbreetz 4y ago
What is the difference between "The will of the people" and the "Tyranny of the Majority"?
- divided 4y ago
  The “tyranny of the majority” makes people feel smart when they say it.
- snapplebobapple 4y ago
  The difference is how long it takes for the minority of people pissed about it to dissipate and for it to become a non issue. As an example, gay marriage was passed at a state level from 2004 to 2015 and the people still butt hurt about it 7 years later are a quickly shrinking, tiny, and largely irrelevant group of orthodox religious types. Politicians who had opposing views are trying really hard to memory hole those opinions and support gay marriage for the most part. Abortion, on the other hand, has grown an increasingly organized, vocal, and politically active instead of dissipating away to a non issue we all largely agree on, which would make it an example of a tyranny of the majority issue.

Ekaros 4y ago

Why not just take a step even further and get rid of states. And when done, why not also simplify things and remove all local democracy. Have everything decided at federal level.

frankbreetz 4y ago
Because those things don't impose the will of the minority. There are somethings that a better decided by people familiar with the local circumstances. I would argue a person in Wyoming's vote being worth 65x that of person's in California has no benefit.
- pauldenton 4y ago
  But that would be in the senate, where each state has 2 representatives. Legislation is started in the House typically, where the number of representatives scales with population.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Why should some imaginary line decide who gets to vote? Isn't it wrong that people on other side of state decide what happens at the other border. Wouldn't it be better to allow also the people on the other side of the border have fair vote on things.