3 ms·

What Democracy?: The case for abolishing the United States Senate

14 points by kudu 13y ago

ctdonath 13y ago
Originally the Senate was not elected by the people directly as democracy, but selected by their states as a republic. Direct election of Senators required a Constitutional a amendment. Don't abolish the Senate, abolish the amendment that screwed it up.
- gte910h 13y ago
  It didn't screw it up. Sentatorial elections (and state govts in general) were horribly corrupt.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    It screwed up the balance and if state governments are "corrupt" then it is up to the citizens of that state to fix it. Given the ability to travel, my dream amendment would be to have the sitting governor of each state be that states single senator. That would stop some of the budget busting stupidity of Senators who have never done a budget.
    - gte910h 13y ago
      > then it is up to the citizens of that state to fix it. They did, they made them directly elected, and a considerable chunk of the state corruption died down http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_Un... is a fine issue
      - protomyth 13y ago
        That wasn't a fix since the Senators are no longer beholden to the states so they don't consider budgets. Look at the debt and bills that negatively impact states. It just moved the corruption and added lobbying in DC.
Retric 13y ago
IMO, DC not having a vote is a far larger issue. The senate may not be 1 man 1 vote but DC has hundreds of thousands of people with no say in federal laws / taxes and rather limited self rule.
- vaadu 13y ago
  DC doesn't warrant being a state. Just like Virginia getting back it's land from DC in the mid 1800s, Maryland ought to get back the land it gave minus the mall area, SCOTUS, white house and capital.
AndrewKemendo 13y ago
The answer is that democracy is itself a protection against tyranny, whether by the one (autocracy) or by the few (oligarchy). Except it's not, which is explicitly the reason for the Senate. It is there to slow things down - by design. Democracies have a pretty bad track record for turning into oligarchies. Of late there has been much discussion about the reforming of the American governmental system because of it's "dysfunction." As a result there are a whole lot of Baby out with the bathwater approaches which are offered up as solutions. This article does the same and wishes away most of the problems that the idealization of the Senate is there to solve. The article's main complaint seems to be that the "aristocracy" of the Senate maintains the power imbalance of the United States, which absolves the electorate of any responsibility. In fact the article never discusses anything beyond the fact that the system is corrupted and that it is racially skewed. Never as to why, or describing some underlying mechanism that is keeping it there. In the end, unless you think voting is "rigged" or somehow a sham, the responsibility falls on the electorate to manage who sits in the seats of power. Widespread apathy and disengagement (for often practical and legitimate reasons) keeps the same people in power and ensures that the wrong decisions and power will continue to be consolidated into too few hands. Good example here: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-11-2013/not-so-angry-voters http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-11-2013/not-s...
shittyanalogy 13y ago
Ok, can we at least acknowledge that this article is completely off topic and has no business being discussed on a news site for computer programmers. specifically: Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. This is: A) About politics and politics alone. B) Not in any way a new phenomenon.
- tbrownaw 13y ago
  I thought politics was taken to usually refer to what the government is doing. This is more about how the government should be shaped.
tbrownaw 13y ago
If we're trying to find a better government, wouldn't it be better to decouple things? Break down the responisbilities of government into a few major areas that probably align fairly well to the existing structure (DoD, NIST, IRS & the social safety net programs, etc), and then instead of electing representatives and senators who get put on committees by seniority, elect people specifically to small-ish committees responsible for policy in one specific area.
protomyth 13y ago
Given the Speaker of the Houses we have had over the years, I shudder to think what would have happened without the states interests being protected by the Senate. In fact, making Senators directly elected has been problematic for state budgets and allowed an overreach in DC that is not proper.

14 points by kudu 13y ago

Originally the Senate was not elected by the people directly as democracy, but selected by their states as a republic. Direct election of Senators required a Constitutional a amendment. Don't abolish the Senate, abolish the amendment that screwed it up.

gte910h 13y ago
It didn't screw it up. Sentatorial elections (and state govts in general) were horribly corrupt.
- protomyth 13y ago
  It screwed up the balance and if state governments are "corrupt" then it is up to the citizens of that state to fix it. Given the ability to travel, my dream amendment would be to have the sitting governor of each state be that states single senator. That would stop some of the budget busting stupidity of Senators who have never done a budget.
  - gte910h 13y ago
    > then it is up to the citizens of that state to fix it. They did, they made them directly elected, and a considerable chunk of the state corruption died down http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_Un... is a fine issue
    - protomyth 13y ago
      That wasn't a fix since the Senators are no longer beholden to the states so they don't consider budgets. Look at the debt and bills that negatively impact states. It just moved the corruption and added lobbying in DC.

Retric 13y ago

IMO, DC not having a vote is a far larger issue. The senate may not be 1 man 1 vote but DC has hundreds of thousands of people with no say in federal laws / taxes and rather limited self rule.

vaadu 13y ago
DC doesn't warrant being a state. Just like Virginia getting back it's land from DC in the mid 1800s, Maryland ought to get back the land it gave minus the mall area, SCOTUS, white house and capital.

AndrewKemendo 13y ago

The answer is that democracy is itself a protection against tyranny, whether by the one (autocracy) or by the few (oligarchy). Except it's not, which is explicitly the reason for the Senate. It is there to slow things down - by design. Democracies have a pretty bad track record for turning into oligarchies. Of late there has been much discussion about the reforming of the American governmental system because of it's "dysfunction." As a result there are a whole lot of Baby out with the bathwater approaches which are offered up as solutions. This article does the same and wishes away most of the problems that the idealization of the Senate is there to solve. The article's main complaint seems to be that the "aristocracy" of the Senate maintains the power imbalance of the United States, which absolves the electorate of any responsibility. In fact the article never discusses anything beyond the fact that the system is corrupted and that it is racially skewed. Never as to why, or describing some underlying mechanism that is keeping it there. In the end, unless you think voting is "rigged" or somehow a sham, the responsibility falls on the electorate to manage who sits in the seats of power. Widespread apathy and disengagement (for often practical and legitimate reasons) keeps the same people in power and ensures that the wrong decisions and power will continue to be consolidated into too few hands. Good example here: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-11-2013/not-so-angry-voters http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-11-2013/not-s...

shittyanalogy 13y ago

Ok, can we at least acknowledge that this article is completely off topic and has no business being discussed on a news site for computer programmers. specifically: Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. This is: A) About politics and politics alone. B) Not in any way a new phenomenon.

tbrownaw 13y ago
I thought politics was taken to usually refer to what the government is doing. This is more about how the government should be shaped.

tbrownaw 13y ago

If we're trying to find a better government, wouldn't it be better to decouple things? Break down the responisbilities of government into a few major areas that probably align fairly well to the existing structure (DoD, NIST, IRS & the social safety net programs, etc), and then instead of electing representatives and senators who get put on committees by seniority, elect people specifically to small-ish committees responsible for policy in one specific area.

protomyth 13y ago

Given the Speaker of the Houses we have had over the years, I shudder to think what would have happened without the states interests being protected by the Senate. In fact, making Senators directly elected has been problematic for state budgets and allowed an overreach in DC that is not proper.