• 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
to divide the state up into manageable portions which can each send representatives to the federal government.

the intended purpose is not to create republican or democrat strongholds. using only population data to draw the districts will allow more competition, and the districts will be largely less secure.

Isnt that up to the states to decide? Theres no federal law that requires this purpose. Doesn't it make sense to put people of similar beliefs in the same districts so that they can choose someone who will be representative of those beliefs?
 
Isnt that up to the states to decide? Theres no federal law that requires this purpose. Doesn't it make sense to put people of similar beliefs in the same districts so that they can choose someone who will be representative of those beliefs?

by allowing the ruling party to draw the districts, the states have proven that they can't handle this responsibility objectively. it is against the public interest to create "safe" districts, as that allows specially selected voters to insulate overly partisan representatives from voter feedback.
 
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?





Hell no.


Gridlock, or at least some "Slow" and "Caution" signs on the road to legislation, is the very REASON we have a Bicameral Congress... along with the Founders didn't WANT pure Democracy to rule the nation, and the Senate acts as a counterbalance to having the majority (highly urbanized states) run roughshod over the minority (lower population states).


It is among the fundamental safeguards that are supposed to help hold down legislation in general, and protect us somewhat from ill-considered bills... hell if anything I want MORE roadblocks to legislation!
 
by allowing the ruling party to draw the districts, the states have proven that they can't handle this responsibility objectively. it is against the public interest to create "safe" districts, as that allows specially selected voters to insulate overly partisan representatives from voter feedback.

So instead of leaving it in the ruling parties hands of the state you will leave it in the ruling parties hands of the federal government. That solves everything..
 
Gerry-Mandering is why we have the 17th amendment, which Repubs also want to get rid of..
Because state-houses were GM-ing and then the statehouses APPOINT the Senators in the original Constitution..
Would you like to go back to when BOTH chambers were GMed?
Isnt that up to the states to decide? Theres no federal law that requires this purpose. Doesn't it make sense to put people of similar beliefs in the same districts so that they can choose someone who will be representative of those beliefs?
 
by allowing the ruling party to draw the districts, the states have proven that they can't handle this responsibility objectively. it is against the public interest to create "safe" districts, as that allows specially selected voters to insulate overly partisan representatives from voter feedback.

Or it ensures that a chosen representative will truly be representative of those who voted. The alternative is to blindy structure a district to where the person who wins might only be favorable to a bare majority. Much like the Presidency. By having a President chosen by the entire country you ensure that half the country doesn't like him. Wheras if there were two Presidents, one from each ideology, both sides would feel represented.
 
Gerry-Mandering is why we have the 17th amendment, which Repubs also want to get rid of..
Due to state-houses GM-ing and then the statehouses APPOINT the Senators in the original Constitution..
Would you like to go back to when BOTH chambers were GMed?

Yes, so long as it resulted in election of reps who more closely represented the will of the people in the district. But like the OP, I would probably do away with the Senate.
 
Or it ensures that a chosen representative will truly be representative of those who voted. The alternative is to blindy structure a district to where the person who wins might only be favorable to a bare majority. Much like the Presidency. By having a President chosen by the entire country you ensure that half the country doesn't like him. Wheras if there were two Presidents, one from each ideology, both sides would feel represented.

imagine that every state draws the districts so that most Republican-leaning districts are diluted out by democrats. would you support that as a the proper way to draw districts?

the best way to do it is to take partisanship out of the equation. my solution would do that, and would also eliminate a massive conflict of interest.
 
Keep the House and the Senate and strip the functions of the federal government back to what was originally intended and leave the rest to the states. Different areas would end up with different laws based on what the people wanted. If you wanted wide open and very few laws there would be the plains. If you prefer more civil engineering there is northeast, and there is no passport requirement between states. I'm pretty happy with how things work in Georgia.
 
No it doesn't. It requires voicing your opinion. That's it. Some people simply choose to do that by forming organizations and spending lots of money.

Current policy reflects that money translates into political power. Lots of people voice their opinions and don't get any traction.
 
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 say eliminate the 16th and 17th amendments.
 
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?

WE THE PEOPLE have the power to make serious change
everybody complains about partisan politics, but think about this please,
what if in the next national election, not one Democrat or Republican gets
any vote at all, ALL of the votes go to the other parties ... Vote for the
NOT a Democrat & NOT a Republican ..... Can U Dig it?
 
our nation was first to have only a house, however the smaller states complained that bigger states would get more representation in our government.. ...so a compromise was reached.....Connecticut Compromise

the house was created to be a voice of the people, or the people's interest....the house is a democracy.

the senate was created to give states [state legislatures] a voice in our government, or the states interest ...it was created as an aristocracy, not becuase of being anything noble, but because senators were appointed by the [state legislators] and worked for those [state legislatures] because the politicians who appointed people to the senate, would appoint those with political skills.

our government was designed to give half direct power 50% to the people and half direct power 50% to the states, ...for any legislative bill to pass congress the interest of the people and the interest of the states have to come together and be represented for any bill to pass.

state legislatures are elected by the people and therefore the people are electing there senator, by what is known as an indirect vote.

with the senate in the hands of the states and not the people, this stops majority rule from taking place, becuase the house and senate are in different hands, and have different interest.

again this is to stop majority rule, and any collectivist activity from becoming law, as stated by Madison in federalist 63


by the 17th amendment passing ..it has taken state interest out of our government and given the senate over to the people's interest, now our congress both sides... are only in the hands of the people, or majority rule, and power being in only one set of hands is tyranny even if it is in the hands of the people only, ...says Madison in federalist 47.........this has also opened up lobbying of our u.s. senate by the rich and powerful.............before the 17th,......senators could not be lobbied.

since we have majority rule in congress, you see government infringing on rights of the people, government growing and stepping outside it delegated powers, because their in no longer states interest .......to keep the federal government in check...as in checks and balances.

with the 17th amendment america has moved closed to democracy........."democracy is the most vile form of government"--James Madison

repeal the 17th amendment, and return to the government of the founders, ....................republican government, mixed government, limited government, responsible government.

Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.

federalist 40
The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
From the New York Packet.
Friday, January 18, 1788.
JAMES MADISON

To the People of the State of New York:

THE SECOND point to be examined is, whether the [ constitutional] convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.
 
Last edited:
I voted no, but after thinking on this considerably I do believe direct elections of Senators should end and their position be determined by State Legislatures. I think if we get back to setting things up the way things were founded we've a better shot of returning closer to the spirit and intent of the Founders.
 
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.

In otherwords, mob rule. Sorry, I don't want states like California dictating what I am allowed and not allowed to do here in Idaho. We get enough Californians moving to here hating the System in California only to try and implement the same crap here. In fact, I'll give a real life example of something that happened.

This one lady from California moved up here and bought a piece of property out in the semi-boondocks. Before buying this property she could see what her neighbors yard was like, cars parked in the yard that were being worked on over many years and cars just sitting there junking out. Yet she bought the property next to him anyways. She then petitioned the Town Fathers for a new law which tried to ban all but 2 vehicles per property because her neighbor's (who'd lived on his property all his life) land was "unsightly". The effects of the ban she tried to implement (and failed) would have made it to where farmers who literally have at least half a dozen vehicles to farm their land would not have been able to do so. All because she didn't like the look of her neighbors yard....which she had a choice of moving next to or not.

Point of this is that different areas require different laws and regulations. It might be a fine law to have in San Diego, but not in Bonners Ferry. The point of our Senate is to prevent one State from dictating what is/isn't allowed in some other state where circumstances are different. IE give equal footing to all states.

Now, if you want to combat corruption a fine way to go about it is to stop lobbying groups from using money to buy out politicians. The way to do that is to limit exactly how much our politicans family can make on a yearly basis. Tie it directly to the average median income of their respective States citizens. Anything over that is not allowed and if they do happen to make more than that then they are forced to donate that extra bit to a random (chosen by computer) charity on a nation wide list. And yes, their bank total should be posted on a specific website dedicated to such on a daily basis. Add another restriction of not being allowed to be employed at any major corporation which employs more than 50 people for 5 years and you've pretty much eliminated the corruption caused by lobby groups.
 
In otherwords, mob rule.

Why do some people on the right refer to normal political voting and the process of representative democracy as mob rule?
 
Why do some people on the right refer to normal political voting and the process of representative democracy as mob rule?

I did because that is exactly what he is wanting. He wants a state which has far more people to have more power than a state with less people instead of the states being on equal footing when being represented. His claim of Wyoming having 70% more power than California ignores the fact that the 70% "increase in power" in actuality just puts Wyoming on direct equal footing with California, preventing California from dictating what happens in Wyoming. Two VERY different states with VERY different cultures and needs and wants.

How can you have a "representative democracy" when the reps from your state have less power than some other state that just happens to have more people? The word "representative" is about representing what the people in their particular state needs/wants. This cannot be done if you have some other states representative over riding your states representative just because they have more people. That would make it to where California is representing Wyoming also.
 
Should the United Nations have countries vote proportionally by their population, or should each nation receive one vote?

Of course, we're a united country and not the United Nations, but we still have the principle of state sovereignty. Every state entered the union on the condition that it would have an equal say in one of the legislative bodies. No matter how long it's been, you don't get to do backsies.
 
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?
The Congress is supposed to contain balanced opposition. That's why one chamber has two
senators per state and the other is based on population. One of the problems seems to be
the fact that congressional districts are drawn by some guy named Jerry Mander.
Who ever he is, he seems to be mentioned a lot.
 
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.

I'm not saying I like the way the EU is built, but do the calculations for the value of an inhabitant of Malta and compare it with a German in the EU Parliament, the Council or the Commission.
 
I did because that is exactly what he is wanting. He wants a state which has far more people to have more power than a state with less people instead of the states being on equal footing when being represented. His claim of Wyoming having 70% more power than California ignores the fact that the 70% "increase in power" in actuality just puts Wyoming on direct equal footing with California, preventing California from dictating what happens in Wyoming. Two VERY different states with VERY different cultures and needs and wants.

How can you have a "representative democracy" when the reps from your state have less power than some other state that just happens to have more people? The word "representative" is about representing what the people in their particular state needs/wants. This cannot be done if you have some other states representative over riding your states representative just because they have more people. That would make it to where California is representing Wyoming also.

So you do NOT believe in the principle of one person one vote? You believe that some votes should be weighted with far more power than other votes are given? You believe that a person should be penalized with a reduction in the impact of their vote simply because of where they happen to live?
 
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?

So you think we should all be ruled by those mindless turds out in California?
 
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.

I do not know, I would call it red tape. More like check&balance.
 
So you do NOT believe in the principle of one person one vote? You believe that some votes should be weighted with far more power than other votes are given? You believe that a person should be penalized with a reduction in the impact of their vote simply because of where they happen to live?

In terms of the federal government, yes. We are a federation of states. The compromise that created the bicameral Congress is known as the Great Compromise, and it was a condition of smaller states joining the union. There is no expiration date.
 
Back
Top Bottom