I’d close the Senate. The House of Representatives is more democratic and more, well, representative of what voting individuals want. And a person should always be more important than a State.
Assuming that all the rights and responsibilities assigned to the Senate were transferred to the House, I’d agree with Sean. However, at least at the federal level, the bicameral structure actually serves a solid purpose. I strongly question bicameral legislatures in most states, since the Senate role is duplicative and based on similar — albeit larger in population –styles of voting districts. I’d like to see the Senate going back to being state appointments and the state Senates going back to being county-based. I think the reasoning behind the “one man, one vote” decision was extremely flawed.
In practice, the House members tend to be more reactive (in a bad way) to voters’ whims, prejudices, and ill-formed opinions. The Senate tends to be more deliberative (a relative term, indeed) and certainly more tempered.
That said, I suppose it is more democratic. I guess the House stays, the Senate goes.
I would remove the House of Representatives. Due to the brevity of their office, they spend a majority of their time campaigning rather than legislating. Actually, I would like to see their terms extended and the Texas Legislature to meet more than once every two years, unless summoned by the almighty governor.
The House is fucking wacky. Give me the Senate any day. Why? Because Senators represent the entire state’s population, so Senators, as a whole, tend to be less radical than some fucknut Representative from “Hippy” District #2 or “Black Helicopters are Out To Get Us” District #5.
Are you implying the Black Helicopters aren’t out to get us? I should write my congressman! He’s not working hard enough on giving the President* the unrestrained power he needs to catch libtards and terrorists and other people who hate America!
But USC1L+, yours was sweeter Still. WAW haw haw hee hee! (Dammit, I was Thinking of that meself, before seeing that you’d long since beaten me To it. :) Yes, old Shotgun Dick’s tricameral legislature really Is a bit Much. Better he should be satisfied just running the Executive branch. ;>
definetely get rid of the senate. just because the framers of the consitution were anti-democratic doesn’t mean we should be stuck with this obsolete abomination.
However, to be momentarily Semi-serious ~ and, I suppose, a bit Contrarian, at least for a pseudo-Liberal ;> ~ if Forced to choose I think I just might shut down the House. / Yes, yes, theoretically the House comes Closer to actually representing Us da Peoples . But as has been suggested above, the House is (accordingly?? :)such a Zoo. ;]
“Hell, NO! The two branches of Congress are central to our Constitutional Government.”
Of course you Know, Foxtrot, that That was the Connecticut Compromise, enabling the Constitutional Convention to proceed. One chamber for the People, the other for the States. Yankee Ingenuity. Courtesy of Connecticut: the Constitution State. :)
A propos of which: Andrew, in CT prior to adoption-at-extraordinary-referendum of the massively-rewritten 1965 State Constitution, the People were represented by the 36-member State Senate, while the 169 Towns were represented by the Much larger State House.
The 36 Senatorial districts were Supposedly of roughly equal populations. (Actually they had fallen Way out of whack over decades of nonredistricting, to the advantage of the Democrats whose urban constituents had become Overrepresented as the central Cities’ populations declined.) OTOH the House was comprised of ~ Essentially ~ Two representatives per Town, except for Some towns which had One (1 :), not so much because of Small population as because of Late date of Incorporation. / Result: the Senate was usually Democratic, while the House was (almost) impregnably Republican. :>
The 1965 Constitution redrew the Senatorial district lines to correct the decades’-worth of population imbalances; scrapped the Town-based House, creating population-based Assembly Districts instead; and set up mandatory Decennial redistricting for Both chambers. / This passed the statewide Referendum by 2+ to 1. / Andrew, you’ll be proud to know that I, a HS senior at the time, had staunchly Opposed all this liberal chicanery :) in a school Debate, following which the students Rejected the pinko plan in a Mock vote which I had personally Arranged ;>, which Result I then phoned in to The Hartford Courant, which dutifully Printed it. :}
“I strongly question bicameral legislatures in most states, since the Senate role is duplicative and based on similar — albeit larger in population –styles of voting districts.”
So pack up yer Wife & yer Fixin’s to boot and Hie thee Hence to Nebraska, whose good citizenry understands “biCameral” to be how the Arabs traverse the Desert. :) [Saaay, maybe you could even Commute to & from Work in Wichita? ;]
The multi-district representation of the house exacerbates the anti-federalist nature of the country in the modern age. That people conceive of themselves sending their neigborhood rep to the Federal Gov’t to represent them diminishes, at least slightly, the importance in their mind of having local government control over their lives. In contrast, two senators in a sense represent the State’s unified interest in the union.
Of course, this model doesn’t really work in the modern age where the federal government has its hand in nearly every aspect of the ordering of the life of every several community.
Well, if we are making changes… keep the Senate — I think the state wide thing is good — but make the Senate a little be more proportional in it’s representation… There are two many Senators from Whacked out square states. Or screw it and just do the whole thing parliamentary style.
As with any system set up to be in meta-balance (a balance of imbalances) rather than simply-balanced, closing any one Branch of Congress would most likely wipe out the meta-balance which is probably (arguably) the most powerful and useful part of the whole US set-up !
It *is* instructive to note those who didn’t read (or didn’t understand) the Question, however …
(grin)
Now, if we could get the Branches of Congress to be primarily deliberative and legislative, and secondarily inquisitorial, *that* would be a distinct improvement …
Joe, I admit to being a closet admirer of the Nebraskan state legislature. However, there is little else appealing about the state.
I personally think states should go unicameral, with most legislators arriving via direct election and a minority filling in based on ideological/list votes (a cross between the Irish and Kiwi or German systems, more or less). I think direct representation is most vital, but ideology/party should also have a say. Finally, terms should be no less than three years, district sizes should never exceed 250,000 voters per representative (and note I said “voters” and not “constituents” or “inhabitants”), and primary seasons should be kept to no sooner than three months before the general election. I like dcl’s parliament idea and have advocated it previously, but I’m increasingly in favor of systems that keep the executive branch totally separate from the legislative branch.
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
July 18th, 2007 at 7:52:25 pm
I’d close the Senate. The House of Representatives is more democratic and more, well, representative of what voting individuals want. And a person should always be more important than a State.
July 18th, 2007 at 7:59:25 pm
Hell, NO! The two branches of Congress are central to our Constitutional Government.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
However, horsewhipping the current lot would probably be justified by the Constitution.
.
July 18th, 2007 at 8:02:19 pm
Assuming that all the rights and responsibilities assigned to the Senate were transferred to the House, I’d agree with Sean. However, at least at the federal level, the bicameral structure actually serves a solid purpose. I strongly question bicameral legislatures in most states, since the Senate role is duplicative and based on similar — albeit larger in population –styles of voting districts. I’d like to see the Senate going back to being state appointments and the state Senates going back to being county-based. I think the reasoning behind the “one man, one vote” decision was extremely flawed.
July 18th, 2007 at 8:29:47 pm
If I had to choose, I would get rid of the House (and at the same time repeal the 17th Amendment) because it is more democratic.
We would do far better under a federal republic than we would under a national democracy.
July 18th, 2007 at 8:46:45 pm
The Office of the Vice President
July 18th, 2007 at 9:32:47 pm
In practice, the House members tend to be more reactive (in a bad way) to voters’ whims, prejudices, and ill-formed opinions. The Senate tends to be more deliberative (a relative term, indeed) and certainly more tempered.
That said, I suppose it is more democratic. I guess the House stays, the Senate goes.
July 18th, 2007 at 9:57:31 pm
I would remove the House of Representatives. Due to the brevity of their office, they spend a majority of their time campaigning rather than legislating. Actually, I would like to see their terms extended and the Texas Legislature to meet more than once every two years, unless summoned by the almighty governor.
July 18th, 2007 at 10:01:24 pm
The House is fucking wacky. Give me the Senate any day. Why? Because Senators represent the entire state’s population, so Senators, as a whole, tend to be less radical than some fucknut Representative from “Hippy” District #2 or “Black Helicopters are Out To Get Us” District #5.
July 18th, 2007 at 10:51:54 pm
Are you implying the Black Helicopters aren’t out to get us? I should write my congressman! He’s not working hard enough on giving the President* the unrestrained power he needs to catch libtards and terrorists and other people who hate America!
*applies to Republican presidents only
July 18th, 2007 at 11:00:52 pm
Max, that was sweet.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:24:21 pm
Excellent question. Terminal campaigners in the House or pompous princelings in the Senate? It’s a toss-up.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:20:47 am
Briandot, that was sweet.
But USC1L+, yours was sweeter Still. WAW haw haw hee hee! (Dammit, I was Thinking of that meself, before seeing that you’d long since beaten me To it. :) Yes, old Shotgun Dick’s tricameral legislature really Is a bit Much. Better he should be satisfied just running the Executive branch. ;>
July 19th, 2007 at 12:54:09 am
definetely get rid of the senate. just because the framers of the consitution were anti-democratic doesn’t mean we should be stuck with this obsolete abomination.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:39:35 am
However, to be momentarily Semi-serious ~ and, I suppose, a bit Contrarian, at least for a pseudo-Liberal ;> ~ if Forced to choose I think I just might shut down the House. / Yes, yes, theoretically the House comes Closer to actually representing Us da Peoples . But as has been suggested above, the House is (accordingly?? :) such a Zoo. ;]
“Hell, NO! The two branches of Congress are central to our Constitutional Government.”
Of course you Know, Foxtrot, that That was the Connecticut Compromise, enabling the Constitutional Convention to proceed. One chamber for the People, the other for the States. Yankee Ingenuity. Courtesy of Connecticut: the Constitution State. :)
A propos of which: Andrew, in CT prior to adoption-at-extraordinary-referendum of the massively-rewritten 1965 State Constitution, the People were represented by the 36-member State Senate, while the 169 Towns were represented by the Much larger State House.
The 36 Senatorial districts were Supposedly of roughly equal populations. (Actually they had fallen Way out of whack over decades of nonredistricting, to the advantage of the Democrats whose urban constituents had become Overrepresented as the central Cities’ populations declined.) OTOH the House was comprised of ~ Essentially ~ Two representatives per Town, except for Some towns which had One (1 :), not so much because of Small population as because of Late date of Incorporation. / Result: the Senate was usually Democratic, while the House was (almost) impregnably Republican. :>
The 1965 Constitution redrew the Senatorial district lines to correct the decades’-worth of population imbalances; scrapped the Town-based House, creating population-based Assembly Districts instead; and set up mandatory Decennial redistricting for Both chambers. / This passed the statewide Referendum by 2+ to 1. / Andrew, you’ll be proud to know that I, a HS senior at the time, had staunchly Opposed all this liberal chicanery :) in a school Debate, following which the students Rejected the pinko plan in a Mock vote which I had personally Arranged ;>, which Result I then phoned in to The Hartford Courant, which dutifully Printed it. :}
“I strongly question bicameral legislatures in most states, since the Senate role is duplicative and based on similar — albeit larger in population –styles of voting districts.”
So pack up yer Wife & yer Fixin’s to boot and Hie thee Hence to Nebraska, whose good citizenry understands “biCameral” to be how the Arabs traverse the Desert. :) [Saaay, maybe you could even Commute to & from Work in Wichita? ;]
July 19th, 2007 at 2:10:13 am
Definitely the entire legislative branch. And throw in them judges, too.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:12:00 am
The multi-district representation of the house exacerbates the anti-federalist nature of the country in the modern age. That people conceive of themselves sending their neigborhood rep to the Federal Gov’t to represent them diminishes, at least slightly, the importance in their mind of having local government control over their lives. In contrast, two senators in a sense represent the State’s unified interest in the union.
Of course, this model doesn’t really work in the modern age where the federal government has its hand in nearly every aspect of the ordering of the life of every several community.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:53:26 am
Well, if we are making changes… keep the Senate — I think the state wide thing is good — but make the Senate a little be more proportional in it’s representation… There are two many Senators from Whacked out square states. Or screw it and just do the whole thing parliamentary style.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:34:17 pm
Hmmm… the executive, legislative, or judicial branch. It’s a tough call, but I’d have to go with the office of the Vice President.
July 19th, 2007 at 3:42:24 pm
As with any system set up to be in meta-balance (a balance of imbalances) rather than simply-balanced, closing any one Branch of Congress would most likely wipe out the meta-balance which is probably (arguably) the most powerful and useful part of the whole US set-up !
It *is* instructive to note those who didn’t read (or didn’t understand) the Question, however …
(grin)
Now, if we could get the Branches of Congress to be primarily deliberative and legislative, and secondarily inquisitorial, *that* would be a distinct improvement …
July 19th, 2007 at 9:06:07 pm
Joe, I admit to being a closet admirer of the Nebraskan state legislature. However, there is little else appealing about the state.
I personally think states should go unicameral, with most legislators arriving via direct election and a minority filling in based on ideological/list votes (a cross between the Irish and Kiwi or German systems, more or less). I think direct representation is most vital, but ideology/party should also have a say. Finally, terms should be no less than three years, district sizes should never exceed 250,000 voters per representative (and note I said “voters” and not “constituents” or “inhabitants”), and primary seasons should be kept to no sooner than three months before the general election. I like dcl’s parliament idea and have advocated it previously, but I’m increasingly in favor of systems that keep the executive branch totally separate from the legislative branch.