• 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
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.

Make no mistake, haymarket knows this very well.......he just doesn't like it. And he's prepared to do anything to change it.
 
That's fine, but he has to understand that short of violence, the only way that happens is if all 50 states agree.
 
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?

When it comes to voting in our representitives, I absolutely do believe in one person one vote with equal weight to the votes. When it comes to enacting laws, hell no. Mob rule always leads to someone getting oppressed and stripped of their rights. Current day example would be SSM. There is no valid reason to deny homosexuals marrying each other.
 
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.

I agree with your legal interpretation. But we as a nation - if indeed we aspire to be one nation - badly need to advance beyond the 18th century and the sensibilities of that day.

Once upon a time a person considered themselves as a Virginian, or a Kentuckian, or a Massachusetts man or a New Hampshire man. They lived their lives as that and there was very strong state identity. That day is long gone. Today a person is born in Michigan, moves to Ohio as a child and gets some of their education there, moves to Mississippi and finishes high school there, goes to UCLA in California as an undergrad, does an advanced degree in Massachusetts, gets married to a girl from New Mexico and they live in Texas, Arizona and Washington state before retiring forty years later and moving to Florida.

That is life for Americans in the 21st century. The day of state identity is long past. The law needs to badly catch up with that reality we all live with.
 
When it comes to voting in our representitives, I absolutely do believe in one person one vote with equal weight to the votes. When it comes to enacting laws, hell no. Mob rule always leads to someone getting oppressed and stripped of their rights. Current day example would be SSM. There is no valid reason to deny homosexuals marrying each other.

People exercising their voting rights is NOT mob rule.
 
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?

They states are equal in the Senate, and Distributively Represented in the House. That is why it takes both. Each state gets an equal say, but each state also gets a proportionate say.
 
I agree with your legal interpretation. But we as a nation - if indeed we aspire to be one nation - badly need to advance beyond the 18th century and the sensibilities of that day.

Once upon a time a person considered themselves as a Virginian, or a Kentuckian, or a Massachusetts man or a New Hampshire man. They lived their lives as that and there was very strong state identity. That day is long gone. Today a person is born in Michigan, moves to Ohio as a child and gets some of their education there, moves to Mississippi and finishes high school there, goes to UCLA in California as an undergrad, does an advanced degree in Massachusetts, gets married to a girl from New Mexico and they live in Texas, Arizona and Washington state before retiring forty years later and moving to Florida.

That is life for Americans in the 21st century. The day of state identity is long past. The law needs to badly catch up with that reality we all live with.

And in every single one of your examples there are different cultures that the person has to learn about, different circumstances that the person will have to deal with. The reasons for having States instead of "One Nation" is just as valid today as it was 200 years ago. What is true in California is not necessarily true in Wyoming. And visa versa.
 
And in every single one of your examples there are different cultures that the person has to learn about, different circumstances that the person will have to deal with. The reasons for having States instead of "One Nation" is just as valid today as it was 200 years ago. What is true in California is not necessarily true in Wyoming. And visa versa.

To take our argument to the next level, so are cities different and so are towns and so are the various neighborhoods withing them. So what? Why should the weighted power of a vote or a states vote be attached to those assumed differences?

What is considered as 'true' in the Mission district of San fransisco is not 'true' in the Beacon Hill section of Massachusetts and is probably different than the Black Bottom on the east side of Detroit? So what? Why should voting power be weighted significantly because of those differences?

I see no argument for that simple reality?
Why is it just as valid today as it was 200 years ago? I just gave you a scenario which showed exactly why it is no longer the case.
 
Suppresses? I have no idea what you mean by that. Can you explain it please?


Sorry Haymarket, I'm not playing your game. You know quite well what the word means and how it is applied in the political sphere. Anyone with the kind of background that you claim to have would easily know it.
 
Sorry Haymarket, I'm not playing your game. You know quite well what the word means and how it is applied in the political sphere. Anyone with the kind of background that you claim to have would easily know it.

You defining the word is key.... vital ..... essential .... and basic to you being able to defend your point. If you cannot do so - the reason is obvious.
 
To take our argument to the next level, so are cities different and so are towns and so are the various neighborhoods withing them. So what? Why should the weighted power of a vote or a states vote be attached to those assumed differences?

What is considered as 'true' in the Mission district of San fransisco is not 'true' in the Beacon Hill section of Massachusetts and is probably different than the Black Bottom on the east side of Detroit? So what? Why should voting power be weighted significantly because of those differences?

I see no argument for that simple reality?
Why is it just as valid today as it was 200 years ago? I just gave you a scenario which showed exactly why it is no longer the case.

Because the needs of one city in one area of the country may be different than what is needful in another part of the country. For example, what grows in San Francisco? What grows in Beacon Hill? There is a difference. One type of plant may thrive in one area and die in another. As such there may need to be laws that allow certain techniques to grow such a plant in one area while those same laws are totally worthless to have in another.

Another example: Is the youthful population higher in Canada than in Florida? If there is a difference then car insurance laws may reflect such things.

Another example: In just about any city it is illegal to fire a gun inside city limits without due cause in order to prevent people from accidentally getting shot. Yet outside of the city, in the boondocks the reason for that law is no longer pressing. As such the law is not needed and people may freely target practice all that they want without fear of hitting someone else. Such a law being imposed on those that have no fear of hitting anyone else because no one else is literally around for miles and miles would be nothing more an over reach of powers and tyrannical in nature.

Another example: The minimum wage in Idaho is 7.25/hr. The minimum wage in California is going to go up to $10.00/hr. Why the difference? Because the cost of living is much higher in California than it is in Idaho. So if California were able to influence the minimum wage in Idaho and forced the minimum wage up to $10.00/hr it would have several negative effects. Like loss of employment due to businesses shutting down or laying off and an increase in cost of living. And yes, the same can be said of your examples of cities.

I could go on and on with lots of different examples. Suffice it to say that what I stated stands. What is true in one area of the country is not necessarily true in another part of the country. As such demanding that some law apply to another part of the country is foolhardy at best. Disastrous at worse. I prefer the middle where if a law is to be applied to ALL states then it must be passed with all parties having an equal standing vote. Not one party having more votes than another and thereby pushing something that is simply not needed anywhere but their own area.
 
You defining the word is key.... vital ..... essential .... and basic to you being able to defend your point. If you cannot do so - the reason is obvious.

No, there is a common definition of the word used by everyone. I will not play your semantical game Haymarket. If you cannot address what I said in whole without resorting to semantics of one particular word then your arguement obviously cannot stand on its own.
 
I agree with your legal interpretation. But we as a nation - if indeed we aspire to be one nation - badly need to advance beyond the 18th century and the sensibilities of that day.

I don't think federalism is an outdated concept though. A united Europe will also have a federalist structure and there are other such republics elsewhere in the world.

Once upon a time a person considered themselves as a Virginian, or a Kentuckian, or a Massachusetts man or a New Hampshire man. They lived their lives as that and there was very strong state identity. That day is long gone. Today a person is born in Michigan, moves to Ohio as a child and gets some of their education there, moves to Mississippi and finishes high school there, goes to UCLA in California as an undergrad, does an advanced degree in Massachusetts, gets married to a girl from New Mexico and they live in Texas, Arizona and Washington state before retiring forty years later and moving to Florida.

Your point is valid, but we're not quite there yet. There is still too much difference in culture between states to make such a nation workable. When Texans aren't too different from New Yorkers we can revisit this. Heck, first we need to resolve the differences between just Vermont and New Hampshire, Vermont being maybe the most hardcore liberal state in the union and New Hampshire having no income or sales taxes and having a strong libertarian streak.

That is life for Americans in the 21st century. The day of state identity is long past. The law needs to badly catch up with that reality we all live with.

States still have interests that conflict though, and the people tend to be aware of it. The farm states have their interests, the coal states have their interests.... Once larger states like california start trying to regulate what happens in other states, sectionalism can come back with a vengeance. Like I said, we're not quite there yet. Heck, Canada isn't quite there yet.
 
Suppresses? I have no idea what you mean by that. Can you explain it please?

The system is designed to require shifting coalitions. In theory, ten big states could band together and rule the nation if we had proportional representation. Obviously that won't happen because those states have too many conflicting interests. But the smaller states worried enough about that that they required approval for all laws not just from a popular house, but also a Senate, which by definition means a majority of states agree when something gets passed.

So any law requires that not only 51% of the people support it, but also at least 26 states.

Also, understand that the majority of governance is at the state and local level. The federal government only has a limited set of responsibilities, and I think it does make sense for the states to be in general agreement when deciding to let the federal government do various things for that reason.

If we transitioned to a government where the federal government had unlimited powers, and the states were simply administrative districts, then a Senate would make no sense. But as long as states are self-governing, and vastly different in how they self-govern, they also need a say in how the federal government.
 
Last edited:
Because the needs of one city in one area of the country may be different than what is needful in another part of the country. For example, what grows in San Francisco? What grows in Beacon Hill? There is a difference. One type of plant may thrive in one area and die in another. As such there may need to be laws that allow certain techniques to grow such a plant in one area while those same laws are totally worthless to have in another.

Another example: Is the youthful population higher in Canada than in Florida? If there is a difference then car insurance laws may reflect such things.

Another example: In just about any city it is illegal to fire a gun inside city limits without due cause in order to prevent people from accidentally getting shot. Yet outside of the city, in the boondocks the reason for that law is no longer pressing. As such the law is not needed and people may freely target practice all that they want without fear of hitting someone else. Such a law being imposed on those that have no fear of hitting anyone else because no one else is literally around for miles and miles would be nothing more an over reach of powers and tyrannical in nature.

Another example: The minimum wage in Idaho is 7.25/hr. The minimum wage in California is going to go up to $10.00/hr. Why the difference? Because the cost of living is much higher in California than it is in Idaho. So if California were able to influence the minimum wage in Idaho and forced the minimum wage up to $10.00/hr it would have several negative effects. Like loss of employment due to businesses shutting down or laying off and an increase in cost of living. And yes, the same can be said of your examples of cities.

I could go on and on with lots of different examples. Suffice it to say that what I stated stands. What is true in one area of the country is not necessarily true in another part of the country. As such demanding that some law apply to another part of the country is foolhardy at best. Disastrous at worse. I prefer the middle where if a law is to be applied to ALL states then it must be passed with all parties having an equal standing vote. Not one party having more votes than another and thereby pushing something that is simply not needed anywhere but their own area.

How do any of these examples for state or local laws dealing with a state or local problem justify allowing a system where the votes of some people are weighted more heavilly than others in national matters?
 
No, there is a common definition of the word used by everyone. I will not play your semantical game Haymarket. If you cannot address what I said in whole without resorting to semantics of one particular word then your arguement obviously cannot stand on its own.

Then it should be very simple for you to present it. Words mean something. Definitions mean something. One of the first things done in actual debate is to clarify the definitions of the terms being used so both sides are on the same page.

Why are you unable to do this simply thing?
 
The system is designed to require shifting coalitions. In theory, ten big states could band together and rule the nation if we had proportional representation. Obviously that won't happen because those states have too many conflicting interests. But the smaller states worried enough about that that they required approval for all laws not just from a popular house, but also a Senate, which by definition means a majority of states agree when something gets passed.

So any law requires that not only 51% of the people support it, but also at least 26 states.

Also, understand that the majority of governance is at the state and local level. The federal government only has a limited set of responsibilities, and I think it does make sense for the states to be in general agreement when deciding to let the federal government do various things for that reason.

If we transitioned to a government where the federal government had unlimited powers, and the states were simply administrative districts, then a Senate would make no sense. But as long as states are self-governing, and vastly different in how they self-govern, they also need a say in how the federal government.

What is the justification for having a system where a minority of people can stifle the will of a much larger majority in matters within the Constitution?
 
How do any of these examples for state or local laws dealing with a state or local problem justify allowing a system where the votes of some people are weighted more heavilly than others in national matters?

There's your problem. We don't have a system where some peoples votes are weighted more heavilly than others in national matters. They are all equal.
 
Then it should be very simple for you to present it. Words mean something. Definitions mean something. One of the first things done in actual debate is to clarify the definitions of the terms being used so both sides are on the same page.

Why are you unable to do this simply thing?

Why are you unable to address what I stated without resorting to your usual semantical debate tactics? If words and definitions mean something then you should have no problem addressing what I stated as the words and definitions are the same for both you and me.
 
What is the justification for having a system where a minority of people can stifle the will of a much larger majority in matters within the Constitution?

What is the justification for having a system where the majority of people can stifle the minority in matters within the Constitution?
 
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.

as long as the people elect their senators, america is closer to democracy, and that is something the founders did not want, ....becuase democracy is full of faction/special interest.......which is destroying america
 
I don't think federalism is an outdated concept though. A united Europe will also have a federalist structure and there are other such republics elsewhere in the world.



Your point is valid, but we're not quite there yet. There is still too much difference in culture between states to make such a nation workable. When Texans aren't too different from New Yorkers we can revisit this. Heck, first we need to resolve the differences between just Vermont and New Hampshire, Vermont being maybe the most hardcore liberal state in the union and New Hampshire having no income or sales taxes and having a strong libertarian streak.



States still have interests that conflict though, and the people tend to be aware of it. The farm states have their interests, the coal states have their interests.... Once larger states like california start trying to regulate what happens in other states, sectionalism can come back with a vengeance. Like I said, we're not quite there yet. Heck, Canada isn't quite there yet.

I agree that there still are some sectional differences in culture that are evident is some states. You mentioned Texas and I suspect that is the most obvious and blatant example and it seems to be so by purpose, by intention and by a desire to intentionally rpeserve that and to hell with assimilation into the larger culture. I do suspect they are the extreme example that situation.

I further suspect that most of the country is far alike than it is different. We are first and foremost Americans.
 
Why do some people on the right refer to normal political voting and the process of representative democracy as mob rule?

simple, becuase the founders divided power in congress, between the states and the people, so that neither one, could be tyrannical , ..so power is divided.

by putting congress in only the hands of the people with the 17th, this leads to mob rule, or majority rule.

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny-- federalist 47
 
Back
Top Bottom