Should the states continue to receive equal representation in the Senate?

[Sbane]

Absolutely not. I am sick of having some low population Senator use my tax dollars to bring home the pork while California gets screwed.

I'm sick of an extreme House of Representatives proposing legislation that infringes on my state's rights. Without the Senate, Colorado, the 2nd freest state, would become a bureaucratic nightmare like California or New York.

And the senate is not capable of this? I think you are the one who is defending the senate due to your loyalties in the current health care debate.

The current health care debate be damned, my vote in the senate is much less relevant than yours. I have less of a voice at the federal level than you do. How the hell is that fair? And please don't get caught up with the issues of today. This system will continue to be unfair regardless of whether it favors conservatives or liberals in the decades to come.

Here's why I support the Senate in a nutshell: The Senate protects the minority (those who live in small states) from the majority (those who live in large states). As I said, for legal and economic reasons, state boundaries are not arbitrary.

I am all for protecting minority opinions, but why protect the opinions of smaller states above the opinion of other minorities such as racial minorities or gays or any number of other minority groups?

Besides if you believe in majority rule, I would wager that the majority supports the Senate.

Talking about health care?

No, I mean a majority support equal representation among the states.

Undoubtedly. I think a compromise may be possible. Instead of 2, maybe all states can get 1 seat in the senate. The rest are then distributed proportionally. Regardless, nothing of the sort will happen since there is no will for it, even in the larger states.

Exactly. If the majority support equal representation among the states, then to argue otherwise contradicts all the arguments for no equal representation.

How does it contradict the arguments against equal representation of states? I want to be just as equally represented in the senate as you and even if a majority of my state doesn't back me on this, it doesn't make my argument any less valid.

[Vepres]

Absolutely not. I am sick of having some low population Senator use my tax dollars to bring home the pork while California gets screwed.

I'm sick of an extreme House of Representatives proposing legislation that infringes on my state's rights. Without the Senate, Colorado, the 2nd freest state, would become a bureaucratic nightmare like California or New York.

And the senate is not capable of this? I think you are the one who is defending the senate due to your loyalties in the current health care debate.

The current health care debate be damned, my vote in the senate is much less relevant than yours. I have less of a voice at the federal level than you do. How the hell is that fair? And please don't get caught up with the issues of today. This system will continue to be unfair regardless of whether it favors conservatives or liberals in the decades to come.

Here's why I support the Senate in a nutshell: The Senate protects the minority (those who live in small states) from the majority (those who live in large states). As I said, for legal and economic reasons, state boundaries are not arbitrary.

I am all for protecting minority opinions, but why protect the opinions of smaller states above the opinion of other minorities such as racial minorities or gays or any number of other minority groups?

Besides if you believe in majority rule, I would wager that the majority supports the Senate.

Talking about health care?

No, I mean a majority support equal representation among the states.

Undoubtedly. I think a compromise may be possible. Instead of 2, maybe all states can get 1 seat in the senate. The rest are then distributed proportionally. Regardless, nothing of the sort will happen since there is no will for it, even in the larger states.

Exactly. If the majority support equal representation among the states, then to argue otherwise contradicts all the arguments for no equal representation.

How does it contradict the arguments against equal representation of states? I want to be just as equally represented in the senate as you and even if a majority of my state doesn't back me on this, it doesn't make my argument any less valid.

Your argument is the people should be represented better to make the government more democratic. BUT, if the majority support a Senate in its current form, then it goes against the very democratic principles you're trying to empower to support changing the Senate.

Just my 2 cents, your opinion is still valid though.

[Swing Voter]

I've honestly thought about this a lot lately. I've come to the conclusion that I support the retainment of the Senate. Now, if the Senate were still being prehistorically elected by state legislatures, I would oppose it wholeheartedly. But, I realize that the Senate was created for a reason. The House is a fast-moving body and it holds its own democratic position. The Senate, on the other hand, is meant to be a step above, hence longer terms and less association from the passions of the people. This can be a good thing. It may stunt legislative work somewhat, but it allows for another check and balance that can't be done any other way. The Senate, in other words, serves to do the "right thing" while the House represents "the people."

No one is arguing against the undemocratic and unelected Supreme Court are they?

[Хahar 🤔]

I've honestly thought about this a lot lately. I've come to the conclusion that I support the retainment of the Senate. Now, if the Senate were still being prehistorically elected by state legislatures, I would oppose it wholeheartedly. But, I realize that the Senate was created for a reason. The House is a fast-moving body and it holds its own democratic position. The Senate, on the other hand, is meant to be a step above, hence longer terms and less association from the passions of the people. This can be a good thing. It may stunt legislative work somewhat, but it allows for another check and balance that can't be done any other way. The Senate, in other words, serves to do the "right thing" while the House represents "the people."

No one is arguing against the undemocratic and unelected Supreme Court are they?

That's all well and fine; it's why Senators have longer terms.

But what purpose does it serve to have a voter in Wyoming cast 69 votes to my one vote?

[Franzl]

I think Madison County, IL has its own unique culture as well. I think Madison County should receive as many votes in the Illinois Senate as Cook County.

Wouldn't that be the same argument as saying Wyoming deserves as many seats as California in the U.S. Senate?

[Lief 🗽]

Also black people have their own unique culture. They should have equal representation. Also Asians and Hispanics.

Also gay people.

And labor unions!

And non-profit organizations, they also deserve to have their voice equally heard.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yes....the country is in bad enough shape without NY and CA having more than 2 assholes representing "us".....

[Franzl]

Yes....the country is in bad enough shape without NY and CA having more than 2 assholes representing "us".....

So your reasoning is entirely political?

[afleitch]

I think that if you were creating the Senate from scratch the current system would never be proposed or entertained. But as it's established that way, there is perhaps no reason to change it.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yes....the country is in bad enough shape without NY and CA having more than 2 assholes representing "us".....

So your reasoning is entirely political?

Yes.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I've honestly thought about this a lot lately. I've come to the conclusion that I support the retainment of the Senate. Now, if the Senate were still being prehistorically elected by state legislatures, I would oppose it wholeheartedly. But, I realize that the Senate was created for a reason.

Unless you restore the Founder's original intent for the election of senators, you have already defeated the reason it was created.

[Хahar 🤔]

I've honestly thought about this a lot lately. I've come to the conclusion that I support the retainment of the Senate. Now, if the Senate were still being prehistorically elected by state legislatures, I would oppose it wholeheartedly. But, I realize that the Senate was created for a reason.

Unless you restore the Founder's original intent for the election of senators, you have already defeated the reason it was created.

Precisely.

But the system was ended for a reason; it led to rampant corruption. In essence, the Senate as originally envisioned cannot work.

[MODU]

Yes.  Each state, no matter their size, should have a platform where they are equal with their peers.  In the case with Congress, that platform is the Senate.  Of course, the Senators should still be chosen by the legislators of the state rather than by direct vote, but that's a different story.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I've honestly thought about this a lot lately. I've come to the conclusion that I support the retainment of the Senate. Now, if the Senate were still being prehistorically elected by state legislatures, I would oppose it wholeheartedly. But, I realize that the Senate was created for a reason.

Unless you restore the Founder's original intent for the election of senators, you have already defeated the reason it was created.

Precisely.

But the system was ended for a reason; it led to rampant corruption. In essence, the Senate as originally envisioned cannot wor.

If that was rampant corruption, then what do you call what we have now?

[Хahar 🤔]

I've honestly thought about this a lot lately. I've come to the conclusion that I support the retainment of the Senate. Now, if the Senate were still being prehistorically elected by state legislatures, I would oppose it wholeheartedly. But, I realize that the Senate was created for a reason.

Unless you restore the Founder's original intent for the election of senators, you have already defeated the reason it was created.

Precisely.

But the system was ended for a reason; it led to rampant corruption. In essence, the Senate as originally envisioned cannot work.

If that was rampant corruption, then what do you call what we have now?

Mild corruption. My ancestors hail from the most corrupt nation in the world; America today is nothing compared to that.

[Sbane]

Yes....the country is in bad enough shape without NY and CA having more than 2 assholes representing "us".....

Remember we would also have more douchebags from TX and PA so that should make you happy.

[Хahar 🤔]

Honestly, how do you give small states a voice at all without the Senate?

While they may have a larger influence than they should, they would be almost totally unable to help those in their states if not for the Senate. Sure, it's not perfect, small states may have a bit too much, but small states wouldn't have squat without the Senate.

I totally agree with this statement.

It may be "unfair" to give the smaller states a bigger influence in the Senate, but I would argue that some elitists in the bigger states think any voice given to the small states is too much.  I'm not saying that is representative of the big states, but there are undoubtedly some with that opinion.

That's not a fair statement, and you know it.

[Brandon H]

Part of me is starting to wonder if some people even know why we have both a House and Senate.

I don't look at this as the smaller states passing legislation to take advantage of the larger states since they have an equal size as someone suggested, rather I look at it as the smaller states being able to protect themselves from legislation to take advantage of them by the larger states. I've looked at the measure of a good session of congress as not at how many good bills pass but how few bad bills pass. (Needless to say I don't remember the last good session of congress.)

[Хahar 🤔]

I am a Muslim. I would like protection from fundamentalists. Therefore, I propose that we Muslims get special representation in Congress.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yes....the country is in bad enough shape without NY and CA having more than 2 assholes representing "us".....

Remember we would also have more douchebags from TX and PA so that should make you happy.

Ha ha, sbane, you don't know me well.....the last great Senator we had would have been President......H.J. Heinz, III.....RIP...........the rest have been dickheads

[Associate Justice PiT]

I am a Muslim. I would like protection from fundamentalists. Therefore, I propose that we Muslims get special representation in Congress.

     Ah, but you already have protection from fundamentalists, as do I.

[muon2]

If there is to be a bicameral legislature, it makes little sense to have them effectively representing the same types of constituencies, but for their populations. If both bodies are sufficiently similar same way it is not clear how that helps the government function for the people it represents. Those who have expressed an abolition of the Senate are consistent with this thought.

I assume that the statement is in the context of a continued bicameral federal legislature. With that assumption I would want the chambers to bring different types of representation to the process. Given the history of Madison's strong desire to suppress the "tyranny of the majority", I can accept a state-based body as a counterpoint to the people-based body of the House. Creating apportioned Senators in the state-based body defeats the distinction need to achieve Madison's goal.

I believe there are other ways to create a distinction between the two bodies. For instance, if one chamber were elected first-past-the-post and the other had multi-member proportional representation by district, that would also work towards the initial goal of the bicameral body.

Those who feel that they are unfairly put upon by the size of their state resulting in too few legislators, I claim there is already a constitutional remedy. A state such as California could petition Congress to divide into smaller states and would get additional Senators in the process. I understand that California may like to keep its single government to interact with the federal nation, and even reap the bloc power of casting its electoral votes for a single candidate. When the voting power of the Senators comes up it sounds like a case of California wanting its cake and eating it too.

[Vepres]

I am a Muslim. I would like protection from fundamentalists. Therefore, I propose that we Muslims get special representation in Congress.

States are like mini-countries, Xahar; most if not all were territories formed by people settling a region, and the borders developed naturally. I think by far the biggest link that holds people together is geography. People in Denver, for example, have their own distinct culture. A black from Denver is way different from one in Atlanta or New York, as is a Latino from Latinos in California or Florida, and even whites compared to others in the country. In some ways, two people with completely different ethnicity, religion, and race from Miami would have more in common culturally than they would with people of the same ethnicity, race, and religion in, say, Massachusetts. Geography more than anything creates commonalities between people culturally.

Oh, and you do have protections from fundamentalists, it's called the 1st amendment.

[Free Palestine]

Yes.  And repeal the 17th Amendment, so states can actually have representation.  The intended balance was between the interests of the state governments, and the popular will.  Now it's a balance between the popular will and the popular will.

[War on Want]

I am a Muslim. I would like protection from fundamentalists. Therefore, I propose that we Muslims get special representation in Congress.

States are like mini-countries, Xahar; most if not all were territories formed by people settling a region, and the borders developed naturally. I think by far the biggest link that holds people together is geography. People in Denver, for example, have their own distinct culture. A black from Denver is way different from one in Atlanta or New York, as is a Latino from Latinos in California or Florida, and even whites compared to others in the country. In some ways, two people with completely different ethnicity, religion, and race from Miami would have more in common culturally than they would with people of the same ethnicity, race, and religion in, say, Massachusetts. Geography more than anything creates commonalities between people culturally.

Oh, and you do have protections from fundamentalists, it's called the 1st amendment.

No, this is false in so many ways. Americans are fundamentally bound into groups by class, race and cultural interests, not by arbitrary state boundaries. I'm sure if you were compare a white upper middle class agnostic in Seattle to a white upper middle class agnostic in Miami, I'm sure there would be more similarity there than between a white upper middle class agnostic in Seattle and a first generation asian upper middle class family in Seattle.

I have no idea where you have come to this conclusion that geographic area creates commonalities between people. It is so much more complex than that. Anyways I don't see how this is an argument for keeping representation equal in the Senate. If anything you could argue that the people inside states are so different from each other that certain cultural and class boundaries are needed for representation so that certain types of people have certain types of representation to represent their own group. Right there you have an argument for the House of Representatives being the only body in Congress.