5 ms·

/glances in the direction of the US Senate

by ChainOfFools 3y ago

solarmist 3y ago
Isn’t that a direct acknowledgment that they are different?
- ChainOfFools 3y ago
  No, unless you're reading my comment as some sort of conservative dog whistle. The US Senate structure is a direct contradiction to GP's observation, it's the case where does not is weakened to should not.
  - User23 3y ago
    The Senate is working exactly as intended. Some people might disagree with that intent, but until the constitution is amended or replaced it's very much a case of "should."
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      Note that the Constitution explicitly prohibits amendments from changing the feature of the Senate in question. (Though two hacks that I am aware of have been proposed for end-running that: the first I call the “who watches the watchmen” hack – the Constitution does not explicitly protect the rules on what Amendments can do the way it protects equal representation in the Senate, so one Amendment would change the rules on Amendments to remove the prohibition against removing equal protection in the Senate, and then the second would restructure the Senate; the second I call the “ceremonial Senate” hack – the Constitution protects equal representation in the Senate from Amendment, but it doesn’t protect any of the Senate’s functions, so you can just strip all the functions of the Senate by Amendment [if you still want a functionally bicameral legislature, you can create a third house of Congress and assign whatever Senate functions you want to retain and not transfer to the House of Reps to third house].)
      - valianteffort 3y ago
        The whole point of the senate was to give states equal power and entice them to federate under a single government. The point of the bicameral legislative branch was that more direct representation necessitated someone living close enough to their constituents, and legislating on their behalf. The house, serves it's purpose of representing the people's voice, based on population. The senate, represents the state's government on the federal playing field. People either snoozed through their US government courses or fundamentally misunderstood the role of the senate when they bring up nonsense about it being unfair. It is perfectly fair, just not in the direction they want.
        User23 3y ago
        I don't think it's even that. Many US residents today, in particular those with policy making power, consider the constitutional political system to be nothing more than another lever of power. For those who hold that ethos the constitution is like a grab bag. The contents that further their objectives are good and are to be used as well as possible. The contents that hinder their objectives are bad and are to be undermined and ignored to the extent possible. The equal representation of the states in the Senate is merely understood, much like the Electoral College, as a bad check on the policy objectives of those in power. That their childish rhetoric works on those with no understanding of US Civics certainly doesn't hurt though.
        valianteffort 3y ago
        People are too disinterested in politics to elect good representatives. They buy into fear-mongering and propaganda with no effort. Just because the representatives suck doesn't mean the system does. A direct democracy would be a catastrophy, as most people who vote are not even paying attention. I think it'd be better to restrict voting to taxpayers federally, and land owners locally.
    - andromeduck 3y ago
      > The Senate is working exactly as intended. Not really. The Senate was meant to represent the interests of the state and state governments as an institution rather than the people of the state but the 17th amendment subverted that under the guise of poblic choice the people because state legislatures wanted to shirk that responsibility. The net result is that we've lost much of the Senate's value as being an elitist/anti-populist/institutional check on populism, and the vagaries of electoral politics in general, without anything to replace it.
      - User23 3y ago
        That was the intent of the 17th amendment. The 17th is just as much a part of the constitution as Article I. Once again, we might agree or disagree, but it is working as intended.
        andromeduck 3y ago
        Not really - the people who enacted the 17th amendment didn't understand why the constitution was the way it is and a result left us at the mercy of populists like donald trump and prodigous spendsers like the last few administrations.

/glances in the direction of the US Senate

solarmist 3y ago

Isn’t that a direct acknowledgment that they are different?

ChainOfFools 3y ago
No, unless you're reading my comment as some sort of conservative dog whistle. The US Senate structure is a direct contradiction to GP's observation, it's the case where does not is weakened to should not.
- User23 3y ago
  The Senate is working exactly as intended. Some people might disagree with that intent, but until the constitution is amended or replaced it's very much a case of "should."
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    Note that the Constitution explicitly prohibits amendments from changing the feature of the Senate in question. (Though two hacks that I am aware of have been proposed for end-running that: the first I call the “who watches the watchmen” hack – the Constitution does not explicitly protect the rules on what Amendments can do the way it protects equal representation in the Senate, so one Amendment would change the rules on Amendments to remove the prohibition against removing equal protection in the Senate, and then the second would restructure the Senate; the second I call the “ceremonial Senate” hack – the Constitution protects equal representation in the Senate from Amendment, but it doesn’t protect any of the Senate’s functions, so you can just strip all the functions of the Senate by Amendment [if you still want a functionally bicameral legislature, you can create a third house of Congress and assign whatever Senate functions you want to retain and not transfer to the House of Reps to third house].)
    - valianteffort 3y ago
      The whole point of the senate was to give states equal power and entice them to federate under a single government. The point of the bicameral legislative branch was that more direct representation necessitated someone living close enough to their constituents, and legislating on their behalf. The house, serves it's purpose of representing the people's voice, based on population. The senate, represents the state's government on the federal playing field. People either snoozed through their US government courses or fundamentally misunderstood the role of the senate when they bring up nonsense about it being unfair. It is perfectly fair, just not in the direction they want.
      - User23 3y ago
        I don't think it's even that. Many US residents today, in particular those with policy making power, consider the constitutional political system to be nothing more than another lever of power. For those who hold that ethos the constitution is like a grab bag. The contents that further their objectives are good and are to be used as well as possible. The contents that hinder their objectives are bad and are to be undermined and ignored to the extent possible. The equal representation of the states in the Senate is merely understood, much like the Electoral College, as a bad check on the policy objectives of those in power. That their childish rhetoric works on those with no understanding of US Civics certainly doesn't hurt though.
        valianteffort 3y ago
        People are too disinterested in politics to elect good representatives. They buy into fear-mongering and propaganda with no effort. Just because the representatives suck doesn't mean the system does. A direct democracy would be a catastrophy, as most people who vote are not even paying attention. I think it'd be better to restrict voting to taxpayers federally, and land owners locally.
  - andromeduck 3y ago
    > The Senate is working exactly as intended. Not really. The Senate was meant to represent the interests of the state and state governments as an institution rather than the people of the state but the 17th amendment subverted that under the guise of poblic choice the people because state legislatures wanted to shirk that responsibility. The net result is that we've lost much of the Senate's value as being an elitist/anti-populist/institutional check on populism, and the vagaries of electoral politics in general, without anything to replace it.
    - User23 3y ago
      That was the intent of the 17th amendment. The 17th is just as much a part of the constitution as Article I. Once again, we might agree or disagree, but it is working as intended.
      - andromeduck 3y ago
        Not really - the people who enacted the 17th amendment didn't understand why the constitution was the way it is and a result left us at the mercy of populists like donald trump and prodigous spendsers like the last few administrations.