A provocative piece today by MarketWatch columnist Rex Nutting “Abolish the Senate; don’t just reform it. Tyranny of the minority has no place in America:”
In fact, the Senate would remain a profoundly undemocratic institution even if the filibuster were eliminated entirely, and if every issue were decided on a timely up-or-down vote. The Senate was established on the flawed premise that the people cannot be trusted to govern themselves. No mere reform of its rules can change its aristocratic character.
The Senate ought to be abolished, but Article V of the Constitution seems to forbid that. If we cannot abolish it, we should chip away at its ability to subvert our will.
Because senators represent states, and not people, it is one of our few political institutions that does not honor the principle that each citizen has equal political rights. In the Senate, some are more equal than others.
The people of Wyoming make up 0.2% of the population but have 2% of the senators. The people of California constitute 12% of the population but also have 2% of the senators. Residents of the District of Columbia have no senators at all. There is nothing fair or just about such a system. It’s a relic of history.
The whole article is worth reading, including this observation “Not all of the founding fathers agreed that the Senate was needed. Benjamin Franklin saw a recipe for gridlock. Having two legislative bodies, he said, was like ‘putting one horse before a cart and the other behind it, and whipping them both. If the horses are of equal strength, the wheels of the cart, like the wheels of government, will stand still; and if the horses are strong enough, the cart will be torn to pieces.'”
I think Nutting is probably right on the merits. A body to represent states may have made sense earlier in our history for a variety of reasons, but it is more damaging than helpful in our contemporary globalized consumer-driven service-based economy. It may be one reason this country is slipping, in both an absolute sense and relative to our competitors. Alternatives to abolition might include allocating Senators based on population (perhaps the simplest reform) or re-assigning the Senate’s powers to the House (all hail, Rep. Boehner, ahem). Change of this order is certainly conceivable. In the constitution as originally drafted, for example, Senators were elected by state legislatures. Now they are directly elected. More democratization, at a minimum, would make the Senate even better.
david says
As Nutting references, Article V says that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” So it would seem that, in order to allocate Senators based on population, Article V would have to be amended first, because as it is written now, Article V’s amendment procedures expressly do not extend to changing the Senate’s “equal suffrage” structure (unless the states in question consent, which of course they will not).
bob-neer says
An easy way to do this would be through Prof. Lessig’s constitutional convention. And, while one is at it, Article V might be a good place to add new language to specify that Senators should represent people.
<
p>If the Senate is bad because it is undemocratic, of course, one might argue along the same lines that there is an even bigger flaw, because even less democratic, in our current system of government: the Supreme Court.
<
p>But I digress.
ryepower12 says
The courts are important for liberty. We definitely need a Supreme Court, even if it’s not “democratic” as such. Of course, this Supreme Court is one we may be able to do with out… but that’s a problem that can be solved through other measures… like replacing lifetime appointments with something like 10 year terms, or going back to the days when we had a liberal President who was willing to confront the Supreme Court when it went wildly out of whack by threatening to pack it.
christopher says
…that this paragraph may not be accurate.
<
p>
<
p>Article V as I read it prohibits unequal suffrage, but not outright abolition. If we were to abolish it every state would have zero votes, thus equity is preserved!
ryepower12 says
The Senate is a terrible institution, and even with filibuster reform, it’s more bad than good. There’s no function it serves that the House couldn’t.
<
p>Unfortunately, we live in a country where kids are taught in school that having two legislative chambers is ‘good’ and the ‘checks and balances’ it provides makes us a better country. It’s a myth, of course, as the courts, constitution and presidential veto all offer plenty of checks and balances, but the American people have always been resistant to change… particularly change that has to do with childhood mythology of American exceptionalism.
<
p>Sadly, that childhood mythology is about as much ‘political science’ and civics as people learn in America… I’ve never seen a high school or even middle school where civics was required. If we’re not going to present the US Senate in its proper context and teach kids old enough to understand it about what it actually is and the historical record of what it has and hasn’t been able to accomplish, we’re never going to see any serious reform. I’d even settle for reform where the ‘states’ still had the Senate for the powers of confirmations, declaration of war and signing treaties… but passing and reforming law absolutely has to be in the sole domain of Congress if we’re to have a country where representative democracy actually exists and laws are representative of its people.
christopher says
And I will absolutely defend that which you mock as childhood mythology. The federal union consists of both people and states, the former represented in the House, the latter in the Senate. Of course we already upset this delicate balance a bit by taking Senate elections out of the legislatures thus depleting the original idea that the body represented state governments. My idea would be to increase the Senate to three per state, with every state electing one Senator each biennium. This would be consistent with the equal suffrage requirement which is not allowed to be amended. BTW, I majored in polisci and DID take AP American Government in high school, and read plenty of this on my own so my conclusions are based on sound reasoning. Our mixed constitution provides for the best balance of all interests, from the very democratic House, the non-democratic courts, and everything in between. Aristotle, I think had it right when he discussed the proper government as being ruled by the many, the few, and the one – in our case the House, the Senate, and the President respectively.
ryepower12 says
individual states anymore, particularly in the modern age when people move to and fro as easily as they do. We’re a different country in 2011 than we were in 1776. It’s time our constitution reflect that.
<
p>
<
p>In every important measure of America compared to our international brethren, we come up middling at best — from health to wealth to equality. I’m sorry, but if “all interests” is the people of this country, the idea that ‘we’re the best’ is verifiably false. It’s important to note here that in every area we are falling behind the world, we’ve had opportunities to change that singularly squashed by the unrepresentative body known as the US Senate.
<
p>I’d be willing to compromise on a ‘state’s right’ argument that enabled the Senate to maintain its role on treaties, declarations of war and appointments — as those all have unique impacts on individual states that may deserve a sample that’s more representative of states than people. However, on matters of legislation and what direction the population of this country wants to take itself in, there really should be no compromise: the Senate gives all the legislative power this country has to 18% of the population in the 26 smallest states. That’s a failed system we can no longer afford.
christopher says
…on the merits of legislation you want to see enacted. We need to elect better Senators to do that, starting in our own backyard as along as we have Scott Brown. A constitutional question, IMO, has to be about a consistently workable principle rather than the politics of the moment. I don’t believe I ever made a we’re the best argument. I think the type of nation we are the current structure is best suited for OUR purposes. In order for all the wisdom of the country to be considered you need to have concurrent majorities that at least pretends to have a bit more consensus than simply the tyranny of the majority.
mr-lynne says
… elect the best people no matter what the system, so I don’t really see that as an adequate response to a call for system reform. Also, I don’t know if I’d go so far as to call it ‘child mythology’, but there absolutely is something to be said for taking a step back and asking the questions ‘What needs improvement?’ ‘What did we get wrong?’ Certainly the founders were not inerrant and it is unreasonable to assume without examination that the 2 chamber system is, as you put it, “best suited for OUR purposes” or even “OUR purposes [now]”. Certainly that shouldn’t be assumed right out of the gate and should be at least a point of debate. I think the assumption is what Ryan is getting at as a ‘child mythology’ and that description might have something to it since we first learn about this system as superior in school and civics textbooks have often been about indoctrination as much as learning. (See Lies My Teacher Told Me and A People’s History of the United States).
christopher says
I’ve read Lies My Teacher Told Me and parts of A People’s History. In Lies I remember thinking that most of that content was not news to me and People’s History I thought lurched toward the politically correct at times. My point was that I have more background than whatever might pass these days for middle and high school basic civics. The debate is fine; I just come down on the side that the system is not so broken as to require such a radical change. I also happen to believe that the Framers were very good at creating a document that has by and large withstood the test of time, that they were students of the great philosophers of the Enlightment Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Montesquieu, etc. and yes, I am willing to give them a great benefit of the doubt.
jconway says
The court packing scheme was terrible and this idea is terrible. Basing an entire system of government on short term policy setbacks is a terrible idea. There would be far less gridlock and arguably more democratic representation of the people’s will if we just let Obama be an elected dictator with two four year terms. Why stop at abolishing the Senate when we can abolish the pesky house and gridlocking Supreme Court as well? Invest the power in one man who embodies the will of the people. Rousseau, Neitszche, Schmitt, and Hobbes would argue that is far more democratic than a constitutional democratic system with a legislature. More efficient as well. But a terrible idea.
<
p>This proposal amounts to a kid whining after he lost the game that the game is unfair and we should completely change the rules. Sorry but calvinball is a terrible model for a system of government. Just four years ago the filibuster was the saviour of the republic from the excesses of George W. Bush and it was a conservative that wanted to kill it. Now its vice a versa. Instead of investing all our powers in our President, even the spiritual and rhetorical seat of government, let us instead recognize the system worked. Americans were tired of one party rule for six years and made a correction, they were tired of one party rule after two years and made a correction, wisely allowing the foreign and social policy setting arm to remain in moderate-liberal hands while allowing the fiscal arm to become conservative (perhaps unwisely). So instead of trying to change the rules lets focus on winning the game with the rules we have.
farnkoff says
and you’re playing the role of the conservative here, dead set on keeping a mistake from being corrected. Do you think Americans capable of self-government, or not? The power afforded to the minority by the composition and rules of the senate is just not reasonable, and political party is completely beside the point. It’s time to chuck the dusty old House of Lords- GK himself would probably approve.
ryepower12 says
that has a fully empowered parliamentary system, Republic or otherwise, that doesn’t have more protections for the poor, working class and middle class.
<
p>I’d like you to find me examples of those countries that don’t level the playing field, delivering more services (often at a better cost) in the fields of education, health care and for seniors.
<
p>I’d like to you find me examples of these countries that don’t do a better job at being more representative of their people — offering more opportunity to people of all ages, from a college education that’s far more affordable to even, in a country like France, making sure every senior has air conditioning after hundreds of seniors died in a major heat wave — the French were horrified by what happened, demanded change, and they got it. Almost instantly.
<
p>Canada. Germany. England. Ireland. The Netherlands. Sweden. Norway. France. Japan. Italy. Spain. Portugal. Australia. Switzerland. New Zealand. Finland. I could go on and on and on. Almost all of those countries do a better job at creating policy that represents their people, and at responding to their people’s needs.
<
p>We must look at ourselves, and look at those other countries, and ask ourselves why they are able to achieve far better policy in so many ways. The answer is not ideological. Do you think the American people don’t want these things? Of course we do.
<
p>Good, affordable health care and a decent education has been a Holy Grail issue for Americans for decades now, but it’s still illusive. Other countries have it; we don’t. None of those countries are hampered by legislative bodies where 18% of the population controls a majority of the votes. If we hold true to the principals of 1 person, 1 vote, voters in California are 1/68th citizens — and voters in DC have no rights to representation at all.
<
p>It’s impossible to pass truly good legislation when 18% of the population controls an entire body of government that’s capable of making everything else grind to a halt. This isn’t a problem with the makeup of the body — the make-up is just a symptom. The bottom line is the Senate prevents us from passing good legislation, not just having the wrong Senators.
centralmassdad says
is not the same thing as a holy grail issue for Americans.
<
p>Your primary complaint seems to be that a significant portion of the voting public disagrees with you. Given the extreme obvious correctness and righteousness of your views, the only thing that could possibly explain this is that (i) that portion of the voting public that does not agree with you is dumb; (ii) that portion of the voting public that does not agree with you is evil; or (iii) the voting public really does agree with you, but the system is so corrupt that we can’t accomplish our ideological goals.
ryepower12 says
The American people have wanted health care reform for a long time now. It may not have been the #1 issue when it was brought up — because we were in the middle of a national catastrophy in the form of the Great Recession — but that doesn’t mean people didn’t want HCR. Even to this point, the people are against repeal and a majority of this country either support the bill or (and this is a much larger number) think it didn’t go far enough.
eaboclipper says
Have you been to Texas? Florida? California?
<
p>Texans think of themselves as Texans first, Americans second.
<
p>We are a nation of 50 individual sovereign states that have formed a more, not completely, perfect Union. Our issues in the Northeast are different from those in the upper plains. That is why, though not perfect, our Republic has stood the test of time.
<
p>We are a Democratic Republic, not an absolute democracy.
christopher says
Florida was originally East Florida and West Florida as territories; California occasionally makes noise about dividing into north and south; Texas is permitted by treaty of annexation to divide up to five ways. The federal constitution allows any state to divide with the consent of Congress.
ryepower12 says
They’ve never thought of themselves as Americans second, and I think they’d be offended by you suggesting that.
<
p>I’m not suggesting people don’t have pride in where they’re from, but go anywhere else in the world and when someone asks, “where are you from?” you’re going to say “America” first.
eaboclipper says
If it’s in New England and Boston if I’m anywhere else in the world before I say America. More over I’d also say “The States” if I was in Canada. I learned at 16 never to say I’m from America to a South American. While at the Presidential Classroom for Young Americans there was a Venezuelan in our group. I asked how she was liking America and got a twenty minute diatribe about how she too was an American, albeit of the Southern Continental variety.
jconway says
Our nation will cease to be a democratic republic without the Senate. James Madison’s government, while imperfect, has done an amazing job for over 200 years. A unicameral legislature, when done at the state level, has resulted in one party rule and chaos throughout our history. The alternative would be a parliamentary system and one party rule for a set period of time. Without a Senate Janice Rogers Brown and Miguel Estrada would be on the court, along with Robert Bork. Without the Senate the Democrats would not have been able to save Social Security under George Bush. John Boehner would have the run of the country. We need three branches with the largest being divided, anything less would be less republican and less democratic. We want the minorities voice to be heard and represented and its very dangerous when a political movement values short term political gain over long term political stability and liberty.
ryepower12 says
We’re falling apart at the seams, and dozens of countries are better at providing a much-improved standard of living for its people than our own — yet, somehow we’re “amazing.” This is an example of the childhood mythology I was talking about. It’s not easy to quit.
<
p>PS. If you think getting rid of the Senate would be “less Democratic,” I’m not sure you know the meaning of the word. 18% of the population controlling a majority of the vote does not a majority make.
<
p>PPS. I very much doubt that the Republicans would be so reactionary if the Senate didn’t exist. The Republicans have lived in a world where they’ve been able to run on extreme positions because they know those extreme positions don’t have a chance in hell to pass. The Senate enables them to behave in the way they do.
<
p>If they actually had a chance to pass the kind of things they talk about in front of the Tea Party and evangelicals today, they either would change their positions to be more reflective of the population, or they’d be run out of office in two years or less.
bob-neer says
Next up: Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Sorry, jconway.
jconway says
I guess believing in my country and being patriotic is a childhood myth unfortunately, along with that whole constitution thing.
<
p>And no matter how old you are Bob, Santa is always real.
centralmassdad says
is not unlike the “i’m going to move to __________” nonsense heard from the losing partisans of every election.
<
p>Whining is a lousy sales strategy.
christopher says
Ryan IS making this argument just as we’re coming into a situation where on the merits we will be counting on the Senate to defend against a GOP House.
centralmassdad says
ryepower12 says
If this was about me wanting more power, or something, I’d be advocating for exactly the opposite — we’re about to get wiped out in the Senate in 2012 and we’ve already lost the House. What I’ve advocated for — particularly filibuster reform (as that’s actually on the table at the moment) – would be very bad for the Democratic Party in the short term. I just believe in the power of making politicians accountable. If Republicans overreach when they’re suddenly able to pass bills they want to pass, they’ll get thrown out of office, just as surely as Democrats would.
<
p>But when you create a system of government so terrified of bad bills passing that it makes it nearly impossible for a good bill to have a chance — and allow the failure to address those problems to create a situation in which almost nothing can pass (lack of filibuster reform) — no party can be accountable for the good and bad, and the people just get furious that nothing ever gets done in Washington, at least for the people of this country. So let’s make them accountable and allow parties in power to rise or fall base on what they want to pass, not based on what they can barely squeeze through in a mutilated form through a broken system.
tedf says
General Tagge: Until this battle station is fully operational, we are vulnerable. The Rebel Alliance is too well equipped! They’re more dangerous than you realize.
<
p>Admiral Motti: Dangerous to your starfleet, Commander, not to this battle station.
<
p>General Tagge: The Rebellion will continue to gain support in the Imperial Senate–
<
p>Grand Moff Tarkin: [walking in with Darth Vader] The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the Council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.
<
p>General Tagge: That’s impossible! How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?
<
p>Grand Moff Tarkin: The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station.
<
p>TedF
ryepower12 says
has a House of Represenatives to “maintain control” even without an Imperial Senate, so there’s no need to fear how we’ll “keep the local systems in line.” :p
peter-porcupine says
I get it. You think without the Senators from the less populated red states, you’d have a better chance of enacting your vision. But now, the population-based House is red, and may go redder. With a Senate, you of a blue state have your interests safeguarded, even if they aren’t shared by a majority of your countrymen.
<
p>This is a skid you may not want to grease.
<
p>Changing the constitution could well be like suicide – a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Political sentiment ebbs and flows – you could be creating a permanent political supermajority, like Mass did when it abolished representation of rural communiites in the House in the favor of ‘representative’ seats which reflect nothing but the majority urban ethos.
<
p>The supermajority you create might not be your color.
ryepower12 says
<
p>I’m in favor of getting rid of the (Democratic) Senate, in favor of making the only legislative body be the (Republican) House. If all I cared about was the here and now, I’d be arguing for the reverse. Majorities come and go, but I’ve always been in favor of accountability — I’m fully confident a Senate-less House will be kept in check by elections every two years. Successes will be rewarded, and failures would be dealt with by the public.
<
p>That’s very different than today, when one legislative body can be held accountable for the other body’s failures — particularly when one of those two bodies is fundamentally broken if the measure is not only legislation that represents the population… but the mere ability to function as an institution.
<
p>
<
p>Why? We’ve changed it a bunch of times before. Only in recent history has changing the constitution become some unfathomable thing. If it were up to me, we’d change the Constitution to ensure we have Constitutional Conventions every 20-30 years.
<
p>
<
p>That’s always the risk, but I think a far greater risk is the status quo. It’s not a matter of having a government I don’t think is particularly representative of our people; our current government is completely and utterly broken and the Senate is the cause of a great many of the symptoms.
bob-neer says
The facts on the ground suggest that any Democrat who supports this kind of reform is making a principled argument. You should applaud that, given your general enthusiasm for first principles.
<
p>Then debate the merits.
<
p>Just my $0.02.
centralmassdad says
the Senate, and the need to get 60 votes therein, is one of the only lines of defense against repeal of the health care reform act.
<
p>Indeed, if they adopt the filibuster reform, Democratic Senators are going to be voting, repeatedly, on repeal. And if that statute doesn’t gain some popular traction by then, it will be a bad 2012 for the (D)’s.
christopher says
I believe there are rules against bringing forward the same legislation more than once a session. The House will vote for repeal on the 12th; the Senate will hopefully make short work of voting against repeal legislation soon thereafter and we won’t hear of it again.
peter-porcupine says
Were I a hardline legislator, I would introduce other legislation but from a different angle.
<
p>For example – I would legislative prohit waivers of more then one year for those asking to be granted exemption from clauses they don’t like – payuing the employer share of the coverage of children up to the age of 47, or wherever it is now. What is it, 40+ labor unions have such waivers and don’t participate like businesses have to?
<
p>That’s not the SAME legislation, but it’s the same subject.
christopher says
They can just refuse to bring it up, or let it come up and vote it down.
peter-porcupine says
And a bill like the one I outlined would probably pass the House.
centralmassdad says
But if the thing doesn’t gain some traction soon, then repeal will be introduced as a new bill, repeatedly, and I don’t doubt that the house would relish the opportunity to add a comma or delete a comma and introduce it again and again. Hence some value to the filibuster, in 2011.
ryepower12 says
They can just keep doing that with or without the filibuster…
ryepower12 says
You can just keep on presenting new bills. Not all of them would be ‘repeal,’ some of them will just be ‘mostly repeal.’
<
p>That said, I don’t think we’re going to see happen very often, because the more often Republicans bring it up, the less popular their actions will be — and it’s easier to “kill” the health insurance bill by defunding it than it is to repeal it and/or reform it. That’s what really worries me — that they’ll go after the $$. We all should be worried about that, and make sure if they do, it’s as widely publicized as when the bill was being debated.
jconway says
to be fair might be the will of the people, even if their will be damning their will should not be damned.
jimc says
By the time of the summer recess, we all might feel a lot better about the Senate.
peter-porcupine says
Which is why legislatures originally elected them. The STATES not only have rights, they have all the rights not specifically enumerated as belonging to the Federal government.
<
p>The other entities involved in legislation – House and Executive – are both elected by the people. Especially if your goofball pact comes into play. Having one entity to represent the minority is tyranny?
<
p>((OT – Ryan – Rememeber I challanged BMG to call for a civics requirement? I’m asking a new Rep. to introduce it. Maybe others can sign on. YOU have educated yourself, for which I salute you, but your contemporaries have been grossly underserved by our education system.)
david says
You have done nothing to address Bob’s main point:
<
p>
christopher says
…am not sure how our governance structure has anything to do with the global economy one way or the other.
david says
christopher says
…rather than just drop a hit and run comment.
david says
ryepower12 says
we can’t pass bills that enable us to compete in the Global Economy because of Senate Gridlock.
<
p>Or even this… would we ever have the farm bill high-fructose corn syrup and ethenol subsidy bill if not for the disproportionate power of small states in this country? The damage that bill has done to the world is incalculable…
<
p>I don’t think either of those two points were what Bob (or David) had in mind… I just use them as examples I’ve yet to bring up myself.
christopher says
…and is there a sense that they only do so as the cost of doing business with the Senate?
<
p>I’m sure that those constituencies would argue that if population alone were the basis of representation they would constantly be overwhelmed by urban interests, and that’s not fair either.
ryepower12 says
But we’ve come to the point where we have to pass something for a farm bill with all the special interests hovering over it, and while small states in the Senate dominates the process because of its its makeup, the House has been more than happy to pass the bill if it gets a load of goodies itself (peanuts in comparison). All kind of crazy stuff is in that bill to win over House members who don’t represent rural areas in small states, primary the corn states. At the end of the day, it’s the Porkiest bill in Porktown… and fed a lot of corn.
<
p>But make no mistake — the small states, because of the Senate, are the real winner in the whole process, and have been able to achieve subsidies for corn (among other goodies) that have literally changed humanity and the very face of the earth itself — and not at all for the good. If the Senate didn’t exist in the way that it does today, the farm bill would be a vastly different creature.
jimc says
<
p>http://www.earlyamerica.com/ea…
<
p>So we get the rights the states don’t prohibit the United States from having. Glad we cleared that up.
<
p>
christopher says
The Electoral College elects the President, which I’d actually be more than happy to abolish.
mr-lynne says
… this way because there are problems with this system being representative, yes? I’d think that at least looking at the efficacy and fairness of the 2 chamber system would be in order for the same reasons, no? For example, most people in the US live in or near cities, but you’d never know that from our government and it’s spending priorities.
christopher says
…and the fact that we do conduct a de facto popular vote anyway. If every state allocated their electors like ME and NE do I might be less concerned. What I don’t like is that both sides hustle for votes, but mostly in states both big and swing, insist that every vote counts, and exalt the concept of the people choosing their leader, only to have 2000 happen, where we say sorry folks, we know you wanted Gore, but the formula didn’t quite work this time and FL apparently can’t count, so y’all are stuck with Bush. When electing individual Senators we do have one person, one vote, and I’m less concerned about direct reflection of the popular will when it comes to legislation.
jconway says
On the ME/NE model, disagree on getting rid of the EC
ryepower12 says
<
p>That is a terrifying sentence to read.
somervilletom says
There are several terrifying things lurking in these parts.
<
p>It seems to me that a “direct reflection of the popular will when it comes to legislation” has led to some absolutely terrible outcomes, specifically in areas where the public is woefully and perhaps intentionally uninformed.
<
p>A direct reflection of the “popular will” in regard to the spurious illegal immigration “problem” leads to flagrant racial scapegoating, especially in the southwest. I suspect that a family of legal Mexican immigrants living in Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona would be rightly terrified by directly reflecting the popular will in those areas.
<
p>Surely the gay and lesbian community in much of the US still has much to fear from directly reflecting the popular will when it comes to awful stereotypes about gender preference.
<
p>Here in Massachusetts, the “popular will” is completely and utterly incapable of accurately managing legislation involving economics, finance, and tax policy. Our population lacks the interest, discipline, and plain old arithmetic skills needed to address hard questions of public tax policy. We saw a direct reflection of the popular will in proposition 2 1/2, and it has been an utter disaster.
<
p>Legislation by referendum — the closest thing we have to “direct reflection of the popular will” — generally leads to terrible law.
<
p>As imperfect as it is, I like the designed-in tension that exists between the Senate and House. I think this enhances the leverage of the Executive, and enables the Judiciary to operate with relative neutrality.
<
p>In my view, the problem with today’s Senate has more to do with today’s Democratic senators than anything else. We Democrats unexpectedly won a majority in both houses in 2008, and we proved woefully unprepared to use it.
<
p>That is a failure of our party, not the framework within which we failed.
ryepower12 says
instead of a direct democracy. Just that fact alone cleans up most of your fears. We have constitutional protections for the rest of them.
<
p>But, yeah, occasionally bad decisions will be made… but when you have a system of government that reflects the will of the people, those decisions can get reversed fast. In broken, gridlocked systems like ours, we actually hope and pray for bad decisions to be made… because, heck, at least it’s something! (/snark off)
<
p>You also have to remember ‘will’ doesn’t just mean a gut feeling on issues people may or may not know a lot about. ‘Will’ is another word for passions… and people who are passionate about things generally know a lot about them. So I don’t fear too many mistakes by the ‘will’ of the people in a representative democracy that actually represents the people. This is born out in parliamentary systems of government in other economically advanced democracies, many of which have much higher standards of living because they have systems of government able to better reflect the will of their people…
jconway says
And that is why we need a more reflective, long term thinking body, that has fewer members representing more people ensuring that a more moderate and all encompassing deliberation can occur. The Senate has killed a lot of bad ideas in its day, halted or killed some good ones, but overall its an essential check on the unbridled passions that the House unleashes. Need I remind you Rye under your system John Boehner would have a supermajority in the legislative branch, because the ‘less representative’ Senate is actually more Democratic because it is less democratic. The three classes of election, the fact that small states get equal representation, and the fact that its a lot harder to get rid of more powerful incumbents, saved the majority for the Democrats. The people, contrary to your assumptions, are not social democrats but apparently, using your logic, tea party republicans since they overwhelmingly took over the peoples house. I for one, being a more liberal person, am glad the elite body of the legislature, and the more powerful one, was insulated from the effects of the anger and passions and mob mentality of the tea parties. More democracy, contrary to your assumptions, in a center-right country like ours, leads to fewer rights for minorities, leads to fewer considerations of the national interest, leads to fewer long term planning and thought. The Senate is the more conservative body in the small c sense of the word, but without it we would’ve banned gay marriage, banned birthright citizenship, and otherwise allowed the redneck rabble of this country to remake it in their image. Thank God for the Senate, its one of the last bastions of reason we have.
dhammer says
and card check – both of which would have spurred a seismic shift in the electorate. VOTERS are center right, I’d argue residents, are far more left wing. Give immigrants the right to vote and the tools to organize as a working class and we’ll stop having red states and start having red states.
ryepower12 says
<
p>How does that change if we eliminated the Senate? States would still have rights… even without a Senate. Very little would change for states if the Senate no longer held sway over legislation.
<
p>
<
p>The word “tyranny” is a straw man. No one’s said that. “Broken,” “not representative,” or “disfunctional” are all better descriptions.
<
p>—-
<
p>As for the call for a required civic’s class… I’d totally be on board. Where do I sign up?
peter-porcupine says
BTW – for BMG to complain about a tyranny of the minority is ironic in view of its usual activism.
david says
Just sayin’.
howland-lew-natick says
Unicameralism always appealed to me. Nebraska’s state government is unicameral as are a few countries. It seems so simple. And simple is usually good.
<
p>But, I don’t see any betterment of government from decreasing the amount of elected. If our federal elected have shown us anything, it is that 435 House members and 100 Senate members work for the business and military interests of the country. They only have to appear to the people every two or six years to gather votes. They can spend the rest of their time cutting deals and voting on bills written by their lobbyist masters. Wouldn’t cutting 100 from the list just make corporate control easier? 100 less mouths to feed.
<
p>Laws passed in 1911 and 1929 set the House at 435 members. If the House representation to the people ratio was the same as when the country was founded the number of Representatives would be about 9000. Would more representatives mean more representation? Think of the corporate nightmare of trying to keep track of all the deals that would have to be made to wrest control from the people? It boggles the mind.
<
p>“Let the people think they govern and they will be governed. –William Penn
ryepower12 says
is a lot of elections and can definitely hold politicians accountable. I wouldn’t dismiss elections every two years… I don’t know many politicians who do.
<
p>BTW: I don’t disagree with having more Reps than 435, particularly if we got rid of the Senate, or took away it’s co-equal status in passing legislation, and I don’t disagree that it would make it harder to ‘buy’ elected officials… particularly given the fact that there would be no more uber-powerful senators coming from population centers the size of medium cities (where a little money is able to buy a lot of power). However, I don’t know if it was you that once brought it up, but I read someone (I think on BMG) once propose something like a having a couple thousand members of Congress. That’s too many. Even a thousand would likely be.
<
p>Finally, there’s dozens and dozens of lobbyists in DC per every elected official. Maybe even hundreds. I think increasing the size of the chamber could dilute their power somewhat, but not as much as you think — and the smaller you make the district, the easier it is to make a small amount of money buy a large amount of influence… so at some point, your idea may actually work against you. Powerful corporations and the wealthy elite would have the money to give many, many thousands of elected officials size-able donations if they thought it was worth it.
jconway says
I for one favor increasing House terms to four years on a class basis modeled off the Senate, because having elections every two years makes the House incredibly short sighted, hyperpartisan, tempted to kick problems down the road, and incapable of making hard and difficult decisions in the national interest. Not to mention it forces House members to spend over 60% of their time in office raising money and running for re-election. The turnover rate, particularly in swing districts, is incredibly high robbing that chamber of the institutional memory it needs to function wisely. Giving them a breather would allow for better and more nuanced public policy outcomes in my opinion. Having the entire legislative branch elected every two years would only exacerbate these problems and create an entire branch that is overly politicized, partisan, and short sighted.
christopher says
Just as the Senate with it’s six-year terms and staggered classes was designed for longer-range visioning, the whole House being elected every two years was designed for quick course corrections. This too was a critical part of the balance designed by the Framers who believed good legislation would develop from a combination of short and long term interests.
<
p>(BTW, I appreciate your support throughout this thread, but that zero you gave Ryan for his first comment above was really uncalled for, IMO.)
ryepower12 says
but I think splitting chambers and staggering elections has the same effect, without losing the accountability. I wouldn’t be opposed to four years terms — if that were the only body making legislation.
bob-gardner says
where Senate votes are routinely translated into the percentage of the population represented by each Senator?
If it were routinely noted that, for example, “40 Senators, representing (say) 23% of Americans successfully filibustered” some bill it would throw the filibustering side a little more on the defensive–at least.
And you wouldn’t need a Constitutional amendment.
christopher says
Any news on whether filibuster reform were successful today?
mark-bail says
Here’s one reason the senate–which I don’t like right now either-may be important: senators, with their six year terms, serve as a check on congresspeople who are politically subject, not just to the wishes, but the whims of the electorate.
Personally, I’d like the senate a whole lot more if there were fewer senators from South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, and Arizona. Actually, I could do without a lot of their representatives as well. My point: the senate would be a better institution with a less polarized country.
Actually, money is also a problem. You can’t be a senator without some major money.
Get rid of 8 or 12 senators from the GOP, eliminate money as an electoral factor, change some of the stupid rules people have already mentioned, and the senate might be helpful.
<
p>
centralmassdad says
if everyone would just agree with me all of the time
jconway says
I would happily be governed by a democratically elected President Palin presiding over this constitutional republic in its current form than live under an unelected dictatorship from this President or another more perfect progressive. Thats the biggest problem with this debate. Too many progressives are focused on process based outcomes and are ignoring the essential liberties, checks, and balances this government was carefully crafted to defend.
mark-bail says
secession, but I still think the senate’s intransigence is more an issue of the influence of money and political polarization than well-crafted checks and balances (of which the filibuster was not one).
johnd says
but does anyone really believe there will be “any” change to the Senate? I would predict that the US Senate rules and body will look the same in 100 years as it does today, exactly.
<
p>The smarter Senators will think long and hard before they do change any rules for most certainly that change will come right back and bite them in the ass. The recent talk about filibuster changes would have unintended consequences if 2012 yields a Republican majority in the Senate and a Republican WH. SCOTUS and Federal judge appointments, state aid funding, HCR, tax codes… with no minority power whatsoever. That would be scary… for anyone!
christopher says
…unless of course we add states in the next century.
<
p>As has been repeatedly pointed out, however, proposed filibuster reforms do not abolish the filibuster or the 60 votes to call the question. It just requires that people who want to oppose actually explain themselves, which I for one think the Democrats should have to do if they are in the minority.
jconway says
A sensible reform that is actually a restoration of a fine Senate tradition that any conservative, in the true sense of the word, should get behind. Needless to say the original ‘reform’ that allowed for cloture votes and got rid of the speaking was based by progressives who wanted to silence the gridlocking nature of endless one man pontificating against civil rights and the like. Just saying what goes around comes around.
jconway says
Unfortunately few on this blog know how to see past the next election, and in that sense we are truly getting the Congress we deserve.
bob-neer says
Just consider the changes over the past 100 years in descending order of magnitude: the electorate was enormously expanded by giving women (19 Amendment ratified August 18, 1920) and many African-Americans and others (Voting Rights Act of 1964) the vote; direct election for Senators was instituted (17th Amendment ratified 1913); and the Senate filibuster rules were changed significantly, first to reduce the number of votes needed to invoke cloture, later to allow silent filibusters.
<
p>Now consider that we live in a time of arguably unprecedented economic change wrought by, among other things, stunning improvements in technology, which have produced unbelievable improvements in communications; global peace, relatively speaking, since 1945; and worldwide adoption of the capitalist system, speaking, again, in broad terms, at least since 1989. And then there is global warming, which is accelerating.
<
p>These changes are likely to produce reforms in our system of government at least as dramatic over the next 100 years as they have been over the past 100 years.
<
p>States are less important now than at any previous time in our history, I submit, and growing less important by the year. That is not to say they are not important, just that there is a trend. I can easily imagine a scenario in which fundamental reforms are demanded for the Senate by we, the people and, if things get dramatic enough, implemented.
peter-porcupine says
Had there been a single nationwide body, it would likely have failed – witness the 30 states that have voted to ban it. But Massachusetts, as an individual state, was able to provide what amounted to a pilot demonstration.
<
p>Are states REALLY less important by the year?
ryepower12 says
I think we’re going to come to the point where we realize the constitution can’t become the bible… unchangeable. It has to be a living and breathing document, which also means it has to change from time to time. The best option, from all the reading and thinking on my own that I’ve done, is regular constitutional conventions — say, every 20-30 years. I actually think something like that could pass in the next few decades, and if it did, I could very well believe the Senate’s form and function could change drastically in a very short time.
<
p>
<
p>2012 will almost certainly result in Republicans taking over the Senate — it would be an epic failure, given the map, if the Republicans don’t take over the Senate… even if it’s a Democratic year. Something like half the Democratic caucus is up for reelection in 2012, and very few Republicans are up for reelection. None of that means I think filibuster reform is a bad idea — full steam ahead.
<
p>If Republicans in the House and Senate overreach without the filibuster, should they hold majorities in both chambers in 2012, not only do we have the courts and President to act as a check, but the American people. Go ahead and try to pass crazy bills… see what happens next. If anything, this will do a lot to restore sanity to our political system.
christopher says
…we lose the Senate in 2012. I say it probably goes to the party that wins the presidency and right now it’s at least even betting that Obama gets re-elected.
ryepower12 says
From wiki:
<
p>
<
p>23 Democrats… several almost guaranteed losses (anyone want to bet on Ben Nelson, Conrad or Tester?), and while we have a few ‘liberal lions’ in that bunch… they’re not in particularly liberal states (ie Stabenow (Mich), Klobuchar (Minn), Brown (Ohio)). There’s going to be some very tough-to-hold elections, too, like McCaskill, Webb, Casey Jr., etc. Can’t really count Bill Nelson in Florida as safe — nothing in Florida ever is at the state level. Even Feinstein in California is widely rumored to be stepping down, making that seat up for grabs (not that she’s all that popular anyway…. so this could be a blessing in disguise).
<
p>If we win 15-18 seats that night, in a vacuum that’s a great night, but in 2012 we lose the Senate… unless something drastic changes between then and now. Plus, even if Obama wins, he’s not going to do nearly as well in many of these ‘battleground’ states as he did last time around — almost certainly losing states like Virginia that he won previously… so the ripples of Obama that night may not be as kind as you think.
<
p>10 Republicans… most of whom are in easy seats. Maybe we’ll pick up Brown, maybe not. Maybe we’ll win Maine if the GOP in Maine ousts Snowe, maybe not. That’s really it for ‘pick up’ opportunities.
johnd says
Huge improvements in unemployment, a robust economy and a streamlined HCR would turn things around for Democrats in 2012, but… ain’t gonna happen. Unemployment is going to improve slowly, very slowly… the economy is going to follow suit… and the Republicans are going to “trim” healthcare reform down while the courts “may” throw out the mandate and many sections don’t kick in for years to come. I predict a large swing of Senatorial seats to R.
ryepower12 says
big rebound in the economy — manage to actually accomplish stuff despite Boehner’s Very Big gavel… etc. etc. etc.
<
p>and we could still lose the Senate. To me, the idea of “winning” the Senate in 2012 is almost impossible and it’s going to be all about minimizing the harm. If we reform the filibuster today and stave off as many of the defeats as possible — so we still hold 48 or 49 of the seats — we’ll be in very good position to make sure we can still get stuff done in the Senate… particularly if we ensure that the Democrats who lose in the Senate are the dead weights.
christopher says
…as well as the power of incumbency. I say we hold almost all Dem seats and flip MA.
ryepower12 says
Don’t get me wrong, I hope you’re right, but it’s times like these that I think you should know… incumbency isn’t what it used to be. In 2010, the advantage of incumbency was about 5%. To put that in perspective, if 2012 is like 2010, about 13 of those 23 Democratic Senators would be reelected and it would be considered a total wipe-out. I actually think we’ll do considerably better than that, but I maintain the fact that we’re unlikely to hold anymore than about 18-20 seats. We’re at least losing 3 — in fact, I can look at 2-3 names that are screaming “no chance” to me right now, and another 4-5 that seem very, very iffy.
centralmassdad says
You guys want to abolish the electoral college and to abolish the Senate, such that the several states no longer have a meaningful role in the composition of the federal government.
<
p>Do we want the President to have Question Time as well? Perhaps we should move inauguration day to the first Wednesday in November and allow the house to call elections as well.
ryepower12 says
They just won’t be able to control it with as little as 18% of the population, 10% with the filibuster.
<
p>
<
p>So your problems with these changes are cultural and not actually based on the merits of what’s good for the country’s ability to pass meaningful legislation that reflects the will of the people. Got it.
centralmassdad says
Is that I don’t see a reason to change a structure that has been stable for 225 years because liberals are sad that they didn’t get single payer.
<
p>I don’t think a parliamentary system– which is what you are advocating– is a remotely good idea, particularly in as geographically and culturally diverse polity as ours.
<
p>Furthermore, the “will of the people” gets to live in the House, which, because of the way districts are drawn, tends to produce crazier ideological officials (Helen Chenoweth, Cynthia McKinney, Dennis Kucinich, DeLay, etc.). The Senate’s single most important function is to marginalize the political extremes of left and right, and maintain a center of political gravity that oscillates around the middle. That is to say, the Senate’s most useful role is to frustrate people like you (and your opposite coins on the right).
<
p>If that means that the Senate is hostile to your single-payer and whatever it is that you want the federal government to do to improve education, so be it. Find a way to move the center of gravity, rather than whining about where it is.
<
p>The will of the people is neither monolithic nor stable, and therefore should have, at most, a voice in the federal government, which it presently has. I see no reason to promote “voice” to “complete control”– particular in response to the mood swings of a far political wing.
ryepower12 says
Or stable like the era of segregation?
<
p>Or McCarthyism?
<
p>Also, I am not opposed to reforming the Senate, instead of going to a unicameral system. Believe it or not, I am a pragmatist.
<
p>Finally, you point out a few people on the fringe… there will always be a few of those. However, just look at Boehner right now — even he is forced to moderate his caucus and limit the power of the Tea Party within it. He’s already steady at work doing it. If the House had the ability to pass bills in and of itself, he’d be even more vigilant about that if he knew what was good for him. People act more rationally than you think. The only reason why he’s allowing the repeal health care vote is because he knows it can go no where. If they actually had the ability to do that, you would see a much different bill that kept the popular aspects of what we passed last session.
<
p>
<
p>If you’re right about that, why are parliamentary systems able to do it? If we need the Senate to “temper” the representative body of the people, why do systems that don’t have anything like the Senate able to be successful… many far more successful than we are in the US. Canada, the UK, Germany… please explain to me why those countries work when they don’t have something like the US Senate to “temper” all those ‘crazies’ in their parties? The facts just don’t back your claim up.
<
p>(The 3 was for your smarmy attitude and backhanded insults.)
garylowell says
mannygoldstein says
Perhaps the sane blue states could secede? I’d think the crazies red states would be thrilled to let us go.
<
p>Then we can start a truly first-world country.
farnkoff says
It’s an undemocratic anachronism, and ideas of its indispensable worth are mostly sentimental, I think. We need to really organize to get this done: bumper stickers, a catchy nickname for advocates of the change, etc. It would take a tremendous amount of work to overcome centuries of inertia, I fear.
afertig says
The failure of good public policy at the hands of the filibuster is not the result of an irreprable Senate, it’s the result of a toxic political environment in which the filibuster is simply a tool.
<
p>I assure you, whatever the structure we have in place — bicameral or unicameral, a Senate elected democratically or by legislatures, filibuster or none — Republicans will use and abuse whatever tools in their disposal to stop change that challenges the status quo. Ezra Klein has some great data on how the filibuster has really just taken off in the last two Congresses. In other words, it’s a symptom of our broken politics, not of a broken body of government.
<
p>The problem isn’t the Senate. The Senate has its downsides, but it also gave us people like Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, and Russ Feingold who were able to do remarkable things even in the modern iteration of the Senate.
<
p>The filibuster is a good thing — it helps give minorities a voice in a body where they often don’t have it. But like most good things, it’s how and how much you use it. I’m mad, but I’m not tear-up-the-Constitution mad. So let’s take a breath and cool down for a minute. What we want is good social policy to pass with greater speed and with fewer unnecessary political roadblocks. Let’s figure out how to achieve that.
ryepower12 says
Case in point: The farm subsidy bill, which has nothing to do with the filibster, but everything to do with the power of small states over large ones in the US Senate. Do you really think our country would have so many subsidies for corn — both in the form of high fructose corn syrup and in ethanol — if small states didn’t have so much damn power in the Senate? The damage the corn subsidies have done to this country — and, indeed, world — is absolutely incalculable, and it’s directly attributable to this bill. The spread of obesity in this country and elsewhere is directly correlative to the farm subsidies for corn, and the switch from sugar to high-fructose corn syrup — and that switch was made because of the subsidies. That’s not to mention the fact that the price of food has gone up because of the subsidies to put corn in gas, which creates more pollution than it solves.
<
p>Another example would be the allocation of funds in the budget — small states get far more than they give, big states get far less, even though a helluva lot more people live in or near cities than in rural areas. Our entire country would be a lot better off if we’d be able to invest in our cities to make them great again, but we can’t do that because of the make-up of the Senate (the filibuster, again, has little to nothing to do with it).
<
p>
<
p>And all of those people were very capable of being outspoken and influential members of the House, too, if we didn’t have a Senate.
<
p>
<
p>While I’m all for giving minorities a voice (I am, after all, one of them), I don’t think for a second that minorities should be able to completely block the will of the majority on critical matters of legislation. Furthermore, there’s plenty of checks and balances in our system without the filibuster — two bodies of Congress, a Presidential Veto, courts, public opinion, etc. The founding fathers never intended for there to be a filibuster, and throughout most of its history, even when the filibuster was used rarely, it was used to protect things like segregation.
<
p>Finally, whether the filibuster is kept, reformed or eliminated, it has nothing to do with “tearing up the Constitution.” The constitution may not prevent the existence of a filibuster, but it certainly doesn’t enshrine it — in fact, the filibuster is a rather modern construct when you look at the entire history of the United States. It was never even dreamed of until well into the 1800s, and wasn’t really an institution until the 1900s.
dca-bos says
In proposing to abolish the Senate (which I think is a pretty bad idea), you have to look at what we would be left with — the House, where the minority party has NO power whatsoever. Remember, the majority in the House only needs 50% + 1 to pass any legislation and even to block the minority from offering amendments.
<
p>The dysfunction in the Senate is largely due to poor leadership on both sides. Reid (and Daschle before him) were weak leaders in many ways and they also perpetuated the problem with small, lightly populated states having too much power. And don’t even get me started on the last few Republican “leaders”.
<
p>That being said, there are a number of rules that exist in the Senate that don’t exist in the House that have been very helpful in moving good legislation through Congress. For instance, the lack of germaneness rules in the Senate has allowed Senators like Kennedy and Wellstone to attach increases in the minimum wage to larger bills that were moving through the process.
<
p>Here’s my pie-in-the sky idea for a fix: when the population of a single state falls below the amount for one House district, that state loses 1 Senator. Not only could this reduce the power of those lightly populated states, it would also pressure Congress to increase the size of the House, thereby increasing the number of members from more populated areas (the smaller a single Congressional district, the more chance that a state retains both Senators). I’m not holding my breath that anything similar to this (or entirely abolishing the Senate) will occur in my lifetime though.
ryepower12 says
in the UK, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. etc. etc. Seems to be working out for them fine… better than our system works for us, at least.
<
p>
<
p>Poor leadership is a symptom of the Senate, not the cause. Reid wasn’t actually all that bad (as much as I can’t stand him) given the make up of his caucus… you’ll note that most of the dead weights come from small states and are a perfect reflection of this problem. Just sayin.
<
p>
<
p>And you get worse Republicans — and more of them — because of the disproportionate make-up of the US Senate.
<
p>
<
p>I do want to point out that technically this is impossible, as all states are at least allotted 1 Representative. This would also have a very small impact — by my count, this would effect only 7 states and it’s rather arbitrary (the difference in population between a state with 1 rep district and 2 may not be very different — for example, the difference between Vermont and Maine in population is 600,000… but the difference between Vermont and California would be about 36 million).
<
p>What you propose would be almost as herculean as a real, legitimate change to the Senate or even getting rid of its ability to pass legislation altogether. I think a better proposal would be to go the UK’s House of Lords route — their upper chamber can slow legislation down, try to influence it in the sphere of public opinion, but not stop it. Allowing the Senate to retain its abilities to confirm appointments, treaties, etc. may help make something like that feasible… at least insofar as any serious changes would be feasible.
christopher says
…is that we HAD majorities in the House AND Senate, as well as the Presidency, but we sacraficed that opportunity on the twin altars of bipartisanship and the fake filibuster.
<
p>Most parliamentary democracies require multiparty coalitions to achieve majority status so that’s your built in consensus building. The notable exception of the UK fortunately has a strong democratic tradition that would prevent dictatorship, but Labour was not only bent on further weakening the Lords, but Tony Blair once said they have the votes so they don’t need to debate. This is wrong, IMO. Also, as extreme examples, keep in mind that Hitler and Mussolini did not take over Germany and Italy respectively by coup; they were duly chosen the heads of their countries’ governments based on their parties’ electoral fortunes. (BTW, I’m not calling anybody Hitler, so please refrain from Godwin references.)
ryepower12 says
Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, Jon Tester — three examples of small state senators, with far more power and influence than they should have if we were to have government that was actually representative of the population — all able to thwart the caucus at almost every step. I could add other names to that list.
<
p>If California, New York, Massachusetts and other states of the like had a more representative share of the Senate, there of course would have been no irony. We’d have gotten immigration reform, environmental reform and probably even single payer, never mind a public option.
<
p>
<
p>Labour got thrown out for its mistakes, which is an example of the system working. The Tories just as surely will, too, when the time comes around.
<
p>
<
p>I don’t know the circumstances of Mussolini’s rise very well, but in Hitler’s part it may not have been a ‘coup,’ but he rose to power through intimidation, violence, and other illegal actions that I don’t think could occur again in a modern democracy. At least, I hope not.
christopher says
…we had a large enough majority that if majority-rule prevailed we could afford to sacrafice Tester, Nelson, Conrad, Lincoln, Lieberman, Landrieu, and still have enough votes, though I don’t recall hearing Tester and Conrad listed as Senators in the habit of thwarting the caucus the way we did the others. This is why I cited the fake filibuster as one of the altars on which we sacrificed our majority prerogative.
ryepower12 says
Reforming the filibuster would make a big difference; getting rid of it would make an even bigger one. However, as I’ve mentioned with issues like the corn subsidies and lack of investment in policy important to the areas where most people live (cities), reforming and/or repealing the filibuster only takes us part of the way there.
<
p>
<
p>Yeah, we probably wouldn’t have lost our majority if we even just had a reformed, you-have-to-stand-up-and-blabber-on-end filibuster. I can definitely agree with that. Certainly, we would have had a much better health care bill, DREAM Act (and maybe even full-scale immigration reform) and other issues that would have been a tremendous lift to the party if we had a real filibuster instead of the fake one for the past 2 years.
jconway says
That is a sensible reform and one that defends the checks and balances the Senate requires. I think out of extreme frustration with the filibuster Rye is failing to realize that the only thing stopping the Republican House is the Democratic Senate and that gridlock is now a good thing and not a bad thing. And he was in favor of such gridlock back when it stopped Bush. But again, minority parties, even in opposition, should still be heard in a democracy. Steamrolling them and having one party government all the time does not work and it leads to horrid policy outcomes in parliamentary countries, which are all pulling back the very social democratic policies Rye favors because they are untenable in this recession. France is trying to adopt American style retirement ages, Britain and Canada are trying to introduce private competition into their healthcare systems, the Canadian one is particularly unpopular with its populace. Perhaps the grass is always greener, but I would say our government is far more stable than Canada’s minority government or the loopholes in a parliamentary system that allow unpopular parties to stay in power by not holding elections or changing coalitions midstream (Italy and Israel recently for example) and changing leaders without elections (Brown and Gillard in Australia).
<
p> So I would argue, while they might have produced, in the short term, better policy outcomes that Rye favors, in the long run they are far less democratic, accountable, or transparent to the people. And the Senate adds another layer of protection from an abusive government, another check on the presidency, and protection from the mob passions that govern the House (and are most definitely governing it currently). Also your claim that the left wing policies you favor are favored by Americans and would be favored by a unicameral House is absurd seeing that the American people just overwhelmingly elected a far right House. I agree with you that those policies should be enacted, but right now the peoples will is not on our side, and surrendering more power to the people will make it less, not more likely, that progressive legislation will get passed. Instead of focusing on changing the rules for short term policy goals (that aren’t actually feasible since this legislature you propose would be less progressive than the current one) lets just focus on winning the game and winning back the working people we lost in November.
ryepower12 says
I have no desire to “stop” the House. Let the House stand or fall on its own merits — that’s the purpose of the diary I wrote that’s currently on the rec list. If there was no Senate, do you really think Boehner would allow Tea Bagging principles to prevail? They’d get thrown out of power for overreaching. No, you’d get a far more representative breed of Republican — and Democrat — in the long run.
<
p>We shouldn’t be so terrified by the occasional bad bill that we create a system in which it’s impossible to pass any truly good bill that would fundamentally increase the standard of living for the American people. When you create a system of government in which parties in power live and die based on their actions, and you make that government representative of the people, you get better, more representative governments. If the Senate was reflective of the population, you’d get far more Scott Browns and Olympia Snowes than you would Jim DeMints. That’s why, in many ways, the right-wing governments in Europe and in Canada are better and more representative of the people than our own Democratic Party.
<
p>
<
p>Quite the opposite. When you have a system of government that is not representative of the people, it is not democratic — your use of the word Democratic here is downright Orwellian doublespeak. If you want accountable government, you make a functional system of government that’s representative to the people. The historical record proves you wrong — our government has failed to pass bills that the American people have wanted for decades because of the disproportionate makeup of the Senate, whereas modern democracies across the world have done a far better job at representing their people in everything from health care to education to supporting their seniors, because their systems of government are representative. The facts are indisputable in that regard, and in many cases it is the ‘right-wing’ parties of those countries that have passed those laws.
ryepower12 says
Because of the fear some of our founding fathers had of bad bills passing, we created a system of government that is, in fact, a great metaphor for an autoimmune disorder: our ‘autoimmune system’ of checks and balances (in this case, the Senate) is in fact ‘attacking’ the good bills we need to raise the standard of living and address major issues like climate change. That’s the disease our country suffers from.
<
p>Our failure to treat that disease since the existence of our government has enabled our symptoms to grow so bad that the Senate pretty much attacks every bill, risking the demise of our entire government. We’re about to treat that symptom, of course, by reforming the filibuster — a good first step to get the patient under control — but we have no longterm plan of addressing the disease.
jconway says
First off I respect the fact that you have at least been consistent in arguing that you support this because you view it as a better process than as a better outcome. You are willing to live with a legislative branch dominated by the tea party in the short term because you are willing to accept that this is the short term will of the people, one you hope would be quickly challenged and tempered over time.
<
p>I would rebut this point by arguing that the Senate was both designed in theory and has been in practice, a more moderate institution. Bills can be debated for longer, speakers can speak for longer, and its a smaller and more collegial environment. The longer terms dictate that Senators think in the long term more often than their House peers. It has also always been remarked that the Senate is the only place in the world where one hundred people can look in the mirror and see a President. This is not by accident but by design. It was the hope of the founders to have a branch where more mature, more seasoned, and more moderate leaders could thrive and essentially be a training ground for the presidency. This is why legislatures choose the Senators so that instead of a popularity contest, seasoned men that were widely respected by their state, would be given a shot at taking over. That is where you got your Daniel Websters, Thomas Hart Bentons, Henry Clays, and Calhouns. Even after the 17th amendment passed, we still had Tafts and LaFollettes and Wagners, precisely because these men had to get statewide recognition and support to be able to govern effectively. The Senate is less directly democratic which paradoxically allows it to be a safeguard for representative democracy. The founders recognized that the people can be easily swayed and governed by their fears and passions, and that the majority might overrule the minority, and thus the Senate is an extra safeguard from what you view as more democracy but what the founders found to be anarchic.
<
p>I would argue our system has been far more stable and consistently representative in a democratic fashion than the parliamentary systems you ascribe to. Also right wing coalitions are not more moderate, they have banned mosques, burquas, and in Austria are reviving fascism and banning the free press. In Italy they have ruled as gangsters. No system is perfect, but like the progressive era Californians who incorrectly assumed the people could be trusted to write balanced budgets and recall corrupt governors, you are placing far too much power in the hands of the people, the same people I might add that are easily swayed by the Glenn Becks of the world. Some may claim the founders were elitist, I would argue they were wiser than us, since they knew the people needed to be protected from themselves.
<
p>I defend the Senate for the same reason I want my judges unelected and appointed, the Bill of Rights not subject to referendum, and my budgets balanced by representatives and not by my neighbors. Sometimes too much direct democracy can corrode and destroy the true ideals of a liberal democracy.
johnd says
“I don’t like the Senate and I think it should be abolished. But since it isn’t going to be abolished, I’m supporting Senator Smith for election”.
<
p>Is that very different from…
<
p>”I don’t like the Senate Pork Spending and I think it should be abolished. But since it isn’t going to be abolished, I’m supporting Senator Smith my Pork Spending for election my district”.
theloquaciousliberal says
Those two things are very different.
<
p>Primarily because “abolishing” pork spending is far, far more likely than abolishing the Senate.
<
p>So, continuing to support pork spending in the face of the opportunity to abolish it (as you truly hope and against which outcome your support for certain pork spending works) is foolish. Continuing to support Senate candidates is instead a wise, pragmatic act in the face of nearly insurmountable odds that your wish to abolish the Senate will come true.
<
p>On the other hand, if you ignore degrees of likelihood than this statement is also “the same” as the other two:
<
p>”I don’t like democracy and think it should be abolished so we can have anarchy or a dictatorship. But since it isn’t going to be abolished, I’m going to continue to vote.”