General Discussion

Metaphorical

(2,357 posts)

81. The Senate is Too Heavily Embedded to change

Mon Oct 28, 2024, 02:53 PM

Oct 28

In effect, the Senate represents geographic administrative centers. The best solution there, albeit not an easy one, would be to split the very large states into multiple states and consolidate the least populous states. Kansas and Iowa, the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, etc., would be consolidated, while California, Texas, Florida, and New York would be broken into separate states. The arbitrary limit of 50 states would be expanded to about 64 or so. Will that happen? Not in my lifetime, but it's about the only way that the Senate could actually be made fair.

The president should be elected by total popular vote, however. That's a very easy fix, though it'll be fought heavily by those states that currently benefit from the existing system (or by the dominant party in those states). Keep the Senate as it is - it's an artefact, but a hard one to fix. Making the president a popular decision means that population, not land, determines who establishes a government, with the Senate acting as the check on that popular power. Without that decision, minority rule will become the de facto governing principle.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

94 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should the Electoral College be abolished? [View all] DeeDeeNY Oct 28 OP

Yes! SalamanderSleeps Oct 28 #1

I second that. OLDMDDEM Oct 28 #28

And they can start by eliminating the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act Charging Triceratops Oct 28 #34

Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes !!! ! ! ! !!!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! Trueblue1968 Oct 28 #73

Not only that bucolic_frolic Oct 28 #2

The Senate must be changed wiseowljedi Oct 28 #30

add Daylight Savings Time to that list RainCaster Oct 28 #82

It absolutely should be abolished, but good luck making it happen. tinrobot Oct 28 #3

Which is why it is set up that way. thatdemguy Oct 28 #47

It's not true that "smaller states" wouldn't have their voices heard. Land doesn't vote. Their voters still vote. themaguffin Oct 28 #4

And they have the same representation in the Senate as larger states. Lonestarblue Oct 28 #27

Yes, but it will have to be done by Constitutional amendment, Ocelot II Oct 28 #5

It's strange we went through the whole 20th century without the electoral college and the popular vote not matching Walleye Oct 28 #6

Yes. We have been working toward it for 20 years. RedSpartan Oct 28 #7

⬆️⬆️⬆️THIS⬆️⬆️⬆️ Think. Again. Oct 28 #14

The reason the Supreme Court is now mostly unethical- DeeDeeNY Oct 28 #23

Only extreme measures can end entrenched minority rule Charging Triceratops Oct 28 #35

Can't rec this enough RANDYWILDMAN Oct 28 #80

And imagine if your in a state thatdemguy Oct 28 #48

Those smaller states Bettie Oct 28 #8

Yes! SocialDemocrat61 Oct 28 #9

Yes, of course, but it will be challenging to make it happen. NNadir Oct 28 #10

2nd amendment is also a relic of slavery Jerry2144 Oct 28 #54

I hadn't thought of it that way, but it makes sense. NNadir Oct 28 #61

That makes no sense T all Ontheboundry Oct 28 #70

YES Faux pas Oct 28 #11

Yes. Those in smaller states do get their voices heard via their vote, just like everyone else In It to Win It Oct 28 #12

Of course people in smaller states will have their voices heard... Think. Again. Oct 28 #13

This is what the Founders thought DeeDeeNY Oct 28 #20

We have tons of info on candidates without them having to campaign anywhere travelingthrulife Oct 28 #22

Any candidate would still have to reach as many voters.... Think. Again. Oct 28 #25

Is it really that much different than the current situation? misanthrope Oct 28 #74

I honestly feel that my vote doesn't count DeeDeeNY Oct 28 #15

It's not just a feeling--it's a fact hawkeye21 Oct 29 #91

It's outlived it usefulness for slave states years ago. Emile Oct 28 #16

No DeepWinter Oct 28 #17

You're ignoring the tyranny of the minority Charging Triceratops Oct 28 #37

It does exactly the opposite of what you said jcgoldie Oct 28 #41

absolutely if..fish..had..wings Oct 28 #18

Republicans were ready to do away with it when Emile Oct 28 #19

Not eliminate, but reformulate the EC. cloudbase Oct 28 #21

Can't each state already do that on their own? misanthrope Oct 28 #76

That's why something like that would have to be imposed through federal legislation. cloudbase Oct 28 #83

"Winner take all" rules should be abolished, at a minimum. CoopersDad Oct 28 #24

I lived in NE for over 20 years and wondered why all states didn't award their EC RubyRose Oct 28 #85

Yes, no doubt. walkingman Oct 28 #26

Absolutely. Voltaire2 Oct 28 #29

Yes, and this is from the granddaughter of an Elector in 1936. Boomerproud Oct 28 #31

Yes. I am from a smallsh state. BoomaofBandM Oct 28 #32

Abolishing the Electoral College will take decades, but the Maine/Nebraska model is not bad WSHazel Oct 28 #33

How the Electoral College Was Nearly Abolished in 1970. (published in 2020) usonian Oct 28 #36

Southern lawmakers bdamomma Oct 28 #45

Why bother with the 60-vote filibuster? Polybius Oct 28 #69

In 1970, it would have been mostly a distinction without a difference, the threshold for cloture was 67 tritsofme Oct 28 #71

Of course, and obviously. Been talking about it at least since 2000. msfiddlestix Oct 28 #38

wouldnt have their voices heard? jcgoldie Oct 28 #39

As a Californian my voice is never heard. The Electoral College needs to go. Beaverhausen Oct 28 #40

It should never have existed in the first place. DavidDvorkin Oct 28 #42

Yes bdamomma Oct 28 #43

Find your State's National Popular Vote organization SeanHG Oct 28 #44

attaching this article bdamomma Oct 28 #46

It won't be changed until the Repugs bdjhawk Oct 28 #49

It sure hasn't prevented what it was for. Blue Full Moon Oct 28 #50

As long as the senate overrepresents small states they will be heard JT45242 Oct 28 #51

Yes I am sick of 3 years campaigns kimbutgar Oct 28 #52

Yes. moondust Oct 28 #53

Virtually impossible to abolish. The popular vote compact would fix it though. bullimiami Oct 28 #55

Yes. kairos12 Oct 28 #56

It's just awful minority rule. NCDem47 Oct 28 #57

YES AmBlue Oct 28 #58

Yes. But a Constitutional convention to change it -- in this era -- might leave us worse off than we are. Silent Type Oct 28 #59

The question is how to be able to do it. diane in sf Oct 28 #60

It was outdated a hundred years ago. bif Oct 28 #62

'Without it, those in smaller states wouldn't have their voices heard." J_William_Ryan Oct 28 #63

Yes BlueKota Oct 28 #64

YES! 1WorldHope Oct 28 #65

Tim Walz says yes DeeDeeNY Oct 28 #66

Yes , by all means. republianmushroom Oct 28 #67

Currently, only 7 states matter. Funtatlaguy Oct 28 #68

Of course Stargleamer Oct 28 #72

Hell,yes! Why should it matter where in the hell ya live? One person, one vote. Geography should have no say. hawkeye21 Oct 28 #75

No Zeitghost Oct 28 #77

YES YES YES YES YES Brainstormy Oct 28 #78

ASAP... We have to stop making the same mistake only JCMach1 Oct 28 #79

The Senate is Too Heavily Embedded to change Metaphorical Oct 28 #81

Yes LetMyPeopleVote Oct 28 #84

Yes how many other developed countries have such a bullshit procedure? Dem4life1234 Oct 28 #86

yes, after i learned it was for slave states. pansypoo53219 Oct 29 #87

of course it should be abolished Skittles Oct 29 #88

Hell yeah The Third Doctor Oct 29 #89

Whenever a Republican tells me we need term limits, I reply Emile Oct 29 #90

It would take the fun out of this: Polybius Oct 29 #92

Let's look at the last 32 years Baggies Oct 29 #93

Yes as soon as it is possible ArnoldLayne Oct 29 #94