• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

Should the Constitution be amended to eliminate the Senate?


  • Total voters
    62

joko104

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Having two branches of Congress increasingly brings the government to a gridlock. The Senate was created when the federal government was going to have virtually no power for which each state was a quasi-independent country joining with others primarily for military defense. But that all ended with the Civil War and is ancient history.

Why should the people and state of Wyoming have 7000% more political power than a Californian and California? Wyoming doesn't contribute 7000% more to the good of the nation. Shouldn't it be one-person-one-vote, rather than 1 vote for a California and 70 votes for a someone who votes in Wyoming? This also leads to massive out-of-state-money being thrown into low population states. The state of Wyoming and many other states have a total population that is only a fraction of just a major American city. I see no justification for that anymore.

I think the Constitution should be amended to eliminate the Senate. This is not limited to the current Congressional mess at all. Rather, it is a growing problem overall and a serious question of the fairness of democracy/republic form of government.

Your opinion?
 
Last edited:
Your opinion?

I say no. This keeps everything in check. There should be as much red tape on the government itself as possible. It should be hard for them to draft laws, not easy. The legislation going back and fourth between the house and senate before it goes to the president's desk is one of those red tapes on the government.
 
Having two branches of Congress increasingly brings the government to a gridlock. The Senate was created when the federal government was going to have virtually no power for which each state was a quasi-independent country joining with others primarily for military defense. But that all ended with the Civil War and is ancient history.

Why should the people and state of Wyoming have 7000% more political power than a Californian and California? Wyoming doesn't contribute 7000% more to the good of the nation. Shouldn't it be one-person-one-vote, rather than 1 vote for a California and 70 votes for a someone who votes in Wyoming? This also leads to massive out-of-state-money being thrown into low population states. The state of Wyoming and many other states have a total population that is only a fraction of just a major American city. I see no justification for that anymore.

I think the Constitution should be amended to eliminate the Senate. This is not limited to the current Congressional mess at all. Rather, it is a growing problem overall and a serious question of the fairness of democracy/republic form of government.

Your opinion?

I think the Senate and the House generally strike a nice balance between state power and the power of the people. It could never be done anyway since Article V prohibits constitutional amendments depriving any state of equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent.
 
Having two branches of Congress increasingly brings the government to a gridlock. The Senate was created when the federal government was going to have virtually no power for which each state was a quasi-independent country joining with others primarily for military defense. But that all ended with the Civil War and is ancient history.
You seem to have the Articles of Confederation confused with the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists lost the debate and the Constitution was written and ratified in favor of a strong federal government to keep the union together. When the States signed on they gave up most of their sovereignty to the federal government.

Why should the people and state of Wyoming have 7000% more political power than a Californian and California? Wyoming doesn't contribute 7000% more to the good of the nation. Shouldn't it be one-person-one-vote, rather than 1 vote for a California and 70 votes for a someone who votes in Wyoming? This also leads to massive out-of-state-money being thrown into low population states. The state of Wyoming and many other states have a total population that is only a fraction of just a major American city. I see no justification for that anymore.
Each state gets two senators so the larger states won't have more power than the smaller states. The people can elect their senators and each Senator only gets one vote, so what are you talking about?

I think the Constitution should be amended to eliminate the Senate. This is not limited to the current Congressional mess at all. Rather, it is a growing problem overall and a serious question of the fairness of democracy/republic form of government.

Your opinion?
You didn't make a very good case for elinimating the Senate.
 
First I noticed it was Traffic Enforcement Cameras..Next I noticed it was Congress he wanted to abolish..Now it's the Senate..DP has its own 'TEAs' that just want to abolish stuff, like the government..That govt. our great Republican POTUSs since Lincoln have given us..
You seem to have the Articles of Confederation confused with the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists lost the debate and the Constitution was written and ratified in favor of a strong federal government to keep the union together. When the States signed on they gave up most of their sovereignty to the federal government.

Each state gets two senators so the larger states won't have more power than the smaller states. The people can elect their senators and each Senator only gets one vote, so what are you talking about?

You didn't make a very good case for elinimating the Senate.
 
If we're going to do away with anything, get rid of the ****ing lobby groups. They have effectively replaced the voice of the American people with the sound of money finding its way into our elected officials pockets.
 
If we're going to do away with anything, get rid of the ****ing lobby groups. They have effectively replaced the voice of the American people with the sound of money finding its way into our elected officials pockets.

Industry experts with real world experience providing their opinions of policy and the likely impacts on them and the economy is an essential aspect of representation.
 
Industry experts with real world experience providing their opinions of policy and the likely impacts on them and the economy is an essential aspect of representation.

Some are. Others resort to the crime of bribery, sweet talking the right people to get multibillion dollar government and military contracts to churn out inferior products and equipment, or finesse bailouts at the taxpayers expense.
 
Some are. Others resort to the crime of bribery, sweet talking the right people to get multibillion dollar government and military contracts to churn out inferior products and equipment, or finesse bailouts at the taxpayers expense.

So your objection is corruption, not lobby groups.
 
You can't keep people from being corrupt, but you can take the sugar away from the ants.

I think that industry expert lobbying is integral to representation and informed development. It's not worth giving that up to fight corruption. Corruption should be engaged directly and without degrading our flow of information to the government.

I would consider banning lobbyists to be cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.
 
I think that industry expert lobbying is integral to representation and informed development. It's not worth giving that up to fight corruption. Corruption should be engaged directly and without degrading our flow of information to the government.

I would consider banning lobbyists to be cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.

And I think that things like junkets, all expense paid trips, and financial campaign backings that result in quid pro quo arrangements are sinking the nation, simply because some legislative officials care more about their investment portfolios than the people who put them in office as a representative. If we can't get rid of lobbyists, we should certainly look into adding extreme limitations on what lobbyists are allowed to do. If their opinions are relevant, and the issues they bring up worthwhile, they shouldn't have to wine and dine our congressmen and senators.
 
Having two branches of Congress increasingly brings the government to a gridlock. The Senate was created when the federal government was going to have virtually no power for which each state was a quasi-independent country joining with others primarily for military defense. But that all ended with the Civil War and is ancient history.

Why should the people and state of Wyoming have 7000% more political power than a Californian and California? Wyoming doesn't contribute 7000% more to the good of the nation. Shouldn't it be one-person-one-vote, rather than 1 vote for a California and 70 votes for a someone who votes in Wyoming? This also leads to massive out-of-state-money being thrown into low population states. The state of Wyoming and many other states have a total population that is only a fraction of just a major American city. I see no justification for that anymore.

I think the Constitution should be amended to eliminate the Senate. This is not limited to the current Congressional mess at all. Rather, it is a growing problem overall and a serious question of the fairness of democracy/republic form of government.

Your opinion?

Not eliminate, but reapportion both houses. We have several states with populations less than many congressional districts with outsized influence in Congress (yeah I know that was the point originally but it is now subverting majority rule).

I would like to see the Constitution amended so that states could have 1, 2 or 3 Senators depending on size, or even have to share a senator with another state if they were both that small (North and South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana). That still gives small states an advantage, but levels it more. I think the House of Representatives should expand in size so that constituents could actually access their Representative; but even if there were 1000 Reps that would still be around 300K citizens per Rep. I'd also make redistricting completely nonpartisan and based solely on geography and population, no more Gerrymandering.
 
Not eliminate, but reapportion both houses. We have several states with populations less than many congressional districts with outsized influence in Congress (yeah I know that was the point originally but it is now subverting majority rule).

I would like to see the Constitution amended so that states could have 1, 2 or 3 Senators depending on size, or even have to share a senator with another state if they were both that small (North and South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana). That still gives small states an advantage, but levels it more.

This is pretty much the only thing that's impossible to amend the Constitution due to Article V.

I think the House of Representatives should expand in size so that constituents could actually access their Representative; but even if there were 1000 Reps that would still be around 300K citizens per Rep.

There is definitely some merit to that idea. I'm not sure if the pros outweigh the cons though. Representatives being closer to their constituents would be a good thing, but with that many members I'm not sure that Congress wouldn't become unwieldy.

I'd also make redistricting completely nonpartisan and based solely on geography and population, no more Gerrymandering.

This I completely agree with. It can never be completely nonpartisan, but I like the work that the commissions have done in the states where they exist like Iowa.
 
First I noticed it was Traffic Enforcement Cameras..Next I noticed it was Congress he wanted to abolish..Now it's the Senate..DP has its own 'TEAs' that just want to abolish stuff, like the government..That govt. our great Republican POTUSs since Lincoln have given us..

Never said I wanted to eliminate Congress. To the contrary, I think Congress should stand it's ground and not allow it's power to be dimished. However, I think Congress should consist of 1 branch and for which 1-citizen-1-vote applies.
 
You seem to have the Articles of Confederation confused with the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists lost the debate and the Constitution was written and ratified in favor of a strong federal government to keep the union together. When the States signed on they gave up most of their sovereignty to the federal government.

Each state gets two senators so the larger states won't have more power than the smaller states. The people can elect their senators and each Senator only gets one vote, so what are you talking about?

You didn't make a very good case for elinimating the Senate.

The Senate, like the House, can gridlock any law, bill, war and budget. Voters in Wyoming have 70 times the voting strength than voters in California. Smaller population states should not have the same legislative power as more populous states in my opinion, nor should their voters have 70 times the influence over the federal government.
 
Our "system" of government is pretty good. The problem is our willingness to elect or allow to be elected by not voting. People that do not have the best interests of the nation at heart.
 
No way, The senate structure allows consensus building and stabilizes policy swings as the political pendulum swings left to right. However I would advocate removing the popular election from the senate and return it to state legislative appointment with term limits in place.
 
Should the Constitution be amended to eliminate the Senate?

no, the constitution should be amended to eliminate gerrymandering by letting a computer draw all districts nationwide using only census data. this would solve all kinds of problems.
 
And I think that things like junkets, all expense paid trips, and financial campaign backings that result in quid pro quo arrangements are sinking the nation, simply because some legislative officials care more about their investment portfolios than the people who put them in office as a representative. If we can't get rid of lobbyists, we should certainly look into adding extreme limitations on what lobbyists are allowed to do. If their opinions are relevant, and the issues they bring up worthwhile, they shouldn't have to wine and dine our congressmen and senators.

I can agree.
 
one branch you say??--Nebraska has that in their state legislature
Never said I wanted to eliminate Congress. To the contrary, I think Congress should stand it's ground and not allow it's power to be dimished. However, I think Congress should consist of 1 branch and for which 1-citizen-1-vote applies.
 
Having two branches of Congress increasingly brings the government to a gridlock. The Senate was created when the federal government was going to have virtually no power for which each state was a quasi-independent country joining with others primarily for military defense. But that all ended with the Civil War and is ancient history.

Why should the people and state of Wyoming have 7000% more political power than a Californian and California? Wyoming doesn't contribute 7000% more to the good of the nation. Shouldn't it be one-person-one-vote, rather than 1 vote for a California and 70 votes for a someone who votes in Wyoming? This also leads to massive out-of-state-money being thrown into low population states. The state of Wyoming and many other states have a total population that is only a fraction of just a major American city. I see no justification for that anymore.

I think the Constitution should be amended to eliminate the Senate. This is not limited to the current Congressional mess at all. Rather, it is a growing problem overall and a serious question of the fairness of democracy/republic form of government.

Your opinion?

How come every time someone doesn't get what they want, they want to change the system. Gridlock is actually part of the plan. We don't want things moving too fast. We'd be bouncing legislation like a ping pong ball without some check.
 
The structure of government is working as intended. If there is not enough agreement to do something, then the government shouldn't do it--subject to the constraints of the Constitution.
 
This is pretty much the only thing that's impossible to amend the Constitution due to Article V.

Not really, the last line greatly inhibits that idea unless some state agrees to it.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate"
 
NO. That gridlock you dislike is exactly the point of having two separate portions of the US Congress. They each serve to limit the other along with the POTUS and the SCOTUS.
 
Back
Top Bottom