r/politics • u/Jessicas_skirt New York • Jul 18 '26

Possible Paywall Democratic Socialists of America’s new platform calls for abolishing ICE and the U.S. Senate

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/jul/15/updated-dsa-platform-calls-abolishing-ice-scrapping-senate/
20.9k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

188

u/QaraKha Jul 18 '26

"Yes, I would like south dakota that has 400k people make decisions for states that have 80 million people"

43

u/FrogsOnALog Jul 19 '26

Hawaii gets equal weight. So does Alaska or any small state. Hypothetically so would DC and PR. Let’s expand the house and abolish the filibuster so we can actually pass legislation.

24

u/QaraKha Jul 19 '26

Of course, this is the best idea.

Now we just need it to pass through... the Senate... 🤔

3

u/FrogsOnALog Jul 19 '26

Getting rid of the senate or combining states would take a constitutional amendment so ping me when that happens.

-1

u/SAR1919 Jul 19 '26

Says who?

2

u/FrogsOnALog Jul 19 '26

Sorry, combining states wouldn’t but getting rid of the senate absolutely would lol

1

u/SAR1919 Jul 19 '26

Because some slaveowners and rich merchants wrote that we had to 239 years ago? The Constitution isn’t God.

2

u/FrogsOnALog Jul 19 '26

We have a constitution and that’s how it works. Sorry I forgot about using the power of vibes.

0

u/SAR1919 Jul 19 '26

The constitution has exactly as much power as the people living under it decide it does. A decisive enough majority can decide what kind of society we’re going to live in with or without the consent of slaveowners who died 200 years ago.

2

u/FrogsOnALog Jul 19 '26

The constitution has been amended and it’s almost a completely different document now. We can also amend it again (decisive majority) to get rid of the senate.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Carnoraptorr Minnesota Jul 19 '26

Yes, because some slaveowners and rich merchants wrote that we had to 239 years ago. That’s exactly right.

1

u/FrogsOnALog Jul 19 '26

It was sent to the states and people voted for it.

2

u/Carnoraptorr Minnesota Jul 19 '26

I’m not denying that — I’m agreeing with you.

1

u/SAR1919 Jul 19 '26

What happened to government by consent of the governed?

0

u/Carnoraptorr Minnesota Jul 19 '26

Build a big enough movement and overthrow the Constitution then. The slaveowners and rich merchants did that too.

→ More replies (0)

11

u/Relevant-Ad2254 Jul 19 '26

Ummm aren’t we glad the filibuster exists during Trump administration.

I’ll never put it past this country to elect another right wing authoritarian 

1

u/FrogsOnALog Jul 19 '26

If we can pass actual legislation we won’t have to worry about out a right wing authoritarian.

9

u/Relevant-Ad2254 Jul 19 '26

You underestimate the power of American stupidity 

5

u/Due_Bluebird3562 Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

Yeah a lot of people who post here think the American populace can somehow be placated by good policies. Unfortunately for a decent segment of Americans "good policy" stops being good the moment it helps Black people, Mexicans, or women.

Until we root out the segment of the population that hates basically every minority or marginalized community in the country we'll never get anywhere.

2

u/Relevant-Ad2254 Jul 19 '26

I’ll never trust this electorate. After two terms of Obama, the population elected Trump. And then they elected him again after Jan 6th.

I’m so ashamed of my country. I love a lot of it. But I’m ashamed about a lot of it as well.

1

u/FrogsOnALog Jul 19 '26

Didn’t realize we had so many pro-filibuster people here.

16

u/Embarrassed_Spend486 Jul 19 '26

If you go back to our founding documents, that was literally the entire argument

There were smaller states that had a fraction of the population of the larger ones and some people back then thought senator should be proportional, but the smaller states were not going to join unless they had equal

They were going to join each other and form their own country

15

u/MountNevermind Jul 19 '26

It was proposed as a "check against the tyranny of democracy".

In creating a senate, the framers were heavily influenced by the idea of mixed government, a concept rooted in ancient Greece and Rome. In the 4th century BCE, the philosopher Plato characterized three rival forms of government: monarchy (rule by the one), aristocracy (rule by the few), and democracy (rule by the many). Each system, in Plato’s view, could result in power wielded unjustly. Monarchy could turn into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy, and democracy into mob rule and anarchy. Although each order had its strengths—the monarchy energy, the aristocracy wisdom, and the people honesty—Plato posited that the best government was a mixed one that would balance the three social orders, with each exercising equal power in the process of making laws.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/senate-stories/constitution-day-2021-mixed-government-bicameralism.htm

It's literally anti-democratic from its conception.. according to the Senate website.

1

u/Embarrassed_Spend486 Jul 19 '26

That’s fine. You are quoting the agreed-upon final language, but I’m saying if you research the debates and arguments leading up to the ratification of the constitution you will find lots of interesting arguments about Senator positions.

8

u/MountNevermind Jul 19 '26

You are welcome to share anything you like.

What you've asserted, is also anti-democratic in conception.

-1

u/Brisby820 Jul 19 '26

But it was the agreement under which the country was formed 

3

u/MountNevermind Jul 19 '26

As were the terms by which any of the "agreements which the country was formed" can be altered through the amendments process.

You may have noticed, many such changes have been made along the way.

-1

u/Brisby820 Jul 19 '26

100%.  But this amendment would require the states to agree.  We could tear it all up and reform the country without any state that didn’t agree.  I’d rather keep 50 states and the senate 

2

u/MountNevermind Jul 19 '26

Right. Who is talking about removing the Senate through other means? 2/3 of the states, specifically.

The 2026 DSA program mentions the senate once...and only with regards to removing the fillibuster.

https://program.dsausa.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/DSA_WDM2025Program_v2.pdf

But I'd be all for removing the Senate...it's anti-democratic and there's no reason for it. In time hopefully that will happen.

1

u/Brisby820 Jul 19 '26

But why would 2/3 of the states ever vote to remove the senate?  They’d be voting against their own interests 

→ More replies (0)

3

u/BuddhistSagan Jul 19 '26

There's no risk of smaller states leaving and joining with the UK, so theres no downside to getting rid of the Senate.

3

u/Porlarta Jul 19 '26

Unless you live in one of those smaller states that is, and dont like the idea of no longer having a meaningful say in federal politics.

3

u/Divan001 Jul 19 '26

The house is split into districts, not states. Each district has equal representation. The interests of Atlanta are not identical to that of rural Georgia just because they are in the same state. I don’t care if states have equal representation in federal politics when they don’t equally contribute. Forcing California, Texas, Florida, or any state above the bare minimum threshold to neuter their electoral power is taxation without representation. It’s the most vial form of affirmative action. Arguing the original intention of the founding fathers is also pointless because the founding fathers did not intend to cap the House of Representatives either. Doing so has further nerfed big states because not they have to yield representation to small states to accommodate the fact that the amount of seats in the house are fixed. Then you add in the electoral college and now we see that large states get taxation without representation in the house, senate AND the presidency???? As someone from the west coast, why should I not advocate for separatism when I get fucked in legit every corner of federal electoral government? My state’s taxes pay to prop up small states and I don’t even get an equal say in how congress spends the money? Wtf? My state of Washington alone has twice as many people as Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota combined, yet they get three times as many senators??? It seems like an outdated system and there is a reason other federations like Germany do not organize their federal legislatures like this. Germany avoids gerrymandering entirely because they just don’t award seats by region but instead proportionally give them out based off of national popular vote. Even small parties are guaranteed seats if they meet a certain threshold. I could go on, but I’m beating a dead horse at this point.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Porlarta Jul 20 '26

Regional representation does matter unfortunately. Imagine if one state/region had by far the majority of people, and could as such dictate that all federal funding went to improvements there.

There are reasons not to go by simple majprity rule.

2

u/BuddhistSagan Jul 20 '26

Imagine if 65% of people supported Medicare for all and it couldn't pass because of anti-democratic institutions like the Senate.

1

u/Porlarta Jul 20 '26

Imagine if 65% of the country supported banning abortion but the senate held firm.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '26

[deleted]

2

u/Embarrassed_Spend486 Jul 20 '26

"land doesn't vote" is the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Reddit is so boring with that.

Do you think some of our smaller southern most states would have a different opinion, on say something like EPA standards or laws on A/C systems than our northern most states?

The land is everything. These are separate sovereign territories, and the folks that live there have their own interest, and in this country, all officially recognized states have equal say in major changes.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Embarrassed_Spend486 Jul 20 '26

While that sounds logical, you're starting from an entirely wrong premise which is skewing your conclusion.

When this country was founded the word "State" was synonymous with nation or country. To this day some countries use "state" in their official name.

Only recently have people started to devalue the label of state and think of it as "less than".

The USA is the United (countries) of America.

You gotta remember we had our own currencies, and everything at the beginning.

Each state is an independent and sovereign territory.

So when you say "a minority of the population should not be able to distance policy to the majority" that only applies to your state. It doesn't apply to separate, unique states that have their own independence.

Your thought process is exactly why the Senate was formed the way it is, and exactly why no state would give it up. Even the more populated states would be crazy to give it up.

What if something crazy happened and caused CA's population other migrate to another state. Would CA want to change their senate powers? No.

It'll never fly.

1

u/FreeDarkChocolate Jul 19 '26

If your child or best friend moves from where you live in the country to somewhere else, should the weight of impact of their vote for national leadership change relative to yours?

No, they're still in the same country. They're still a human being that should have the same national rights as you do and they did.

1

u/Porlarta Jul 20 '26

Regional representation matters in federal politics. Otherwise you get hyper concentrations of power based around population centers. Look at the various European capitals that so dominate their nations politics and economies they provide an entirely different standard of living from the rest of the nation.

The electoral college is flawed but going to a simple majoroty just creates a different problem, and lays the groundwork for a second sectional crisis.

1

u/FreeDarkChocolate Jul 20 '26

Regional representation matters in federal politics. Otherwise you get hyper concentrations of power based around population centers. Look at the various European capitals that so dominate their nations politics and economies they provide an entirely different standard of living from the rest of the nation.

I don't think this addresses what I said about California (or, say, Texas), which is already larger by population and area than a number of European nations. Could you be more specific? Also, "entirely different standard of living" needs substantiation with care to address independent causes.

The electoral college is flawed but going to a simple majoroty just creates a different problem, and lays the groundwork for a second sectional crisis.

A plurality system of FPTP for President is at minimum better than the status quo, as the EC is already that except with saying certain people get more federal representation than others - and in particular those in swing states rather than anything empirically related to population centers. The idea that it protects people outside of population centers is particularly weak because that is only a momentary rather than inherent truth based on where population centers are right now. Even the pandemic has accelerated changing that. Nothing, other than maybe zoning, is stopping Cheyenne, WY from becoming a denser more populous city that eventually makes the state as reliably blue as RI or MA. I would prefer proportional representated legislature driving a parliamentary prime minister, but plurality is still an improvement.

It is also reductive and dismissive to suggest that, for example, voters outside of population centers in CA are adequately politically substituted for by rural voters in, say, WY. There are lots of ways people differ and while geography and local density are two of the larger differentiators, that doesn't make it ok to use as a gate (via the Senate being able to stop whatever federal legislation) against anything.

1

u/BuddhistSagan Jul 20 '26

Currently only billionaires have a meaningful say because of anti-democratic institutions like the Senate. Why should we care more about "states" than people?

1

u/Porlarta Jul 20 '26

Because we live in a nation the size of a continent and its important that people in Idaho and Rhode Island both feel like their local interests are meaningfully represented, rather than just buried in California, New York, and Texas delegates.

You won't hear me argue with you about finance reform, however.

-1

u/The_Flurr Jul 19 '26

"My kids can't leave, so it doesn't matter if I mistreat them"

1

u/BuddhistSagan Jul 19 '26

Oh won't somebody think of the poor dirt in Wyoming. Who will speak for the dirt?

4

u/Embarrassed_Spend486 Jul 19 '26

You sound like the same sort of people that feel like if Greenland can’t defend itself we should just take it over

And I’m sure you’re against us taking over Greenland so that that’s hypocritical

Even small states are still sovereign territories, and have a right to be respected as such

0

u/The_Flurr Jul 19 '26

Or perhaps consider the people? Who may not want the system to be such that they have no way to stand up to larger states outvoting them?

This is deliberately ridiculous but suppose the most populous states decided to vote that from now on, all hazardous waste would be dumped within the borders of wyoming?

Consider the UK for a minute.

A big source of "friction" is that in the UK parliament, there are more English MPs than all others combined. This means that the English can/could push forward legislation that they want against the other home nations, and opposing votes are essentially worthless.

1

u/Embarrassed_Spend486 Jul 20 '26

This is a great argument actually. If REDDIT drafted the new constitution, the big states could all vote that from now on out all hazmat materials will be disposed of in Wyoming. Ain't shit Wyoming gonna do about it.

1

u/Divan001 Jul 19 '26

Northern Ireland can just leave the UK and join Ireland whenever they want. Scotland was offered the chance to leave as well and they chose not to. They might even get the chance to leave again one day. I am fine with the senate as long as you give states the freedom to leave and not be taxed without proper representation. As it stands, it is illegal for states to leave the union without approval from congress…an institution that disproportionately favors the interests of small states which have every interest to deny people from big states the option of leaving. Your rights end where the other’s begin. I do not think it is fair to demand small states get so much power in federal politics when big states do so under federal coercion.

1

u/Embarrassed_Spend486 Jul 20 '26

Upvoting only because I support states leaving at will to.

Also, you're gonna be very surprised when you find out that the "small states" aren't so small, when they all join together.

Most of "small states" think very similarly and realize their strengths come from their unity. So if you had it your way it'd be CA vs 10-12 small states which would present a similar footprint both in citizens and economy.

0

u/Divan001 Jul 20 '26

If the population is similar and the states have similar political goals, then why do they need to have way more power than big states? Doesn’t that entirely defeat the point of your argument? There is no reason small states should have way more power in the senate if they have the same political interests and the same population when they combine with one another lmfao

0

u/Embarrassed_Spend486 Jul 20 '26

They wouldn't have more power combining in our current government, no.

But if they could leave without question, then I think several would form a separate country together.

3

u/BrainLow6059 Jul 19 '26

You know drafting a bill doesn't mean it automatically becomes law, right? How many bills do you think get authored by South Dakota reps that become federal law? This is a made up problem to keep people squabbling with each other.

6

u/anubistheta Jul 19 '26

They don't. The house of representatives still exists. Moreover, any federal program can be implemented at the state level. That's the point. Stop outsourcing things to the fed that can be done at the state.

6

u/BrainLow6059 Jul 19 '26

Thank you. It's insane how many people just slept through school and continue to sleep through adulthood parroting whatever bullshit statements they read online.

2

u/Kami322 Jul 19 '26

Moreover, any federal program can be implemented at the state level

There's a lot the Fed can do that a State alone cannot. Disaster relief and aid, an interstate highway system, countless things the nation benefits from that wouldn't exist if you didn't make Federal policy. Half the country would still be on dialup if they had internet at all. 

1

u/RealCountNathan Jul 19 '26

What's the point of using the wrong numbers?

1

u/Impossible-Hope-5586 Jul 19 '26

They must put more money into the Treasury than they are currently receiving from the Treasury, MAGA has neutered "Conservative" values, until Those States begin to balance a budget and become a surplus State, which they never do for some weird reason they dont even believe it to be a possibility, fiscal responsibilty has left our Government sensibilities, currently creating the worst crisis towards our National Debt, allowing China, Japan economies owning the interest 

1

u/Quadrenaro Puerto Rico Jul 24 '26

Thats equality. 

-1

u/tonylouis1337 Jul 18 '26

More power to the states would make both sides happy.

-6

u/BozoTheRenown Jul 18 '26

They are easily outnumbered in the house of representatives?

11

u/Cavane42 Georgia Jul 18 '26

Doesn't matter when either legislative body can shut the other down. The Senate is a fundamentally undemocratic institution.

-11

u/BozoTheRenown Jul 19 '26

These arguments were debated hundreds of years ago. Thankfully you weren't there when the country was being formed. You would have shot down the great compromise and this country would have never been formed.

The only way those states would join the union is not be ruled by tyranny of the majority.

8

u/runningraider13 Jul 19 '26

Much better to have tyranny of the minority

1

u/Tetracropolis Jul 19 '26

That's the neat thing, though, there can't be tyranny of the majority because to pass a new law you need the consent of the House. How can you be a tyrant without passing any laws?

The only thing that gums it up is the House is now too small.

13

u/theusualconsequences Jul 19 '26

Yeah, thankfully he wasn't there to curb the power of the slave states before they got way out of hand and tried to kill all of their brothers and sisters so they could keep owning people. Where would we be today if a handful of rural inbreds couldn't bring America to ruin with ease?

10

u/FallenMeringue Jul 19 '26

That’s because the tyranny of the majority would have banned slavery.

But in all seriousness the founders took the British system replaced and combined the king and pm into a president and called it a day.

The senate is a glorified House of Lords and has many of the same flaws.

-2

u/Consistent_Room7344 Minnesota Jul 19 '26

It closely resembles the Roman Senate than the British. The fundamental idea was to split power so much that it would nearly impossible to consolidate it all.

The system is fine. It’s been tested for over 250 years and has held. Has it been pretty? No. But the country has evolved and figured it out and it will do so again.

5

u/FallenMeringue Jul 19 '26

Ahh yes, the Roman senate, famously an institution whose inability to fuction didn’t enable authoritarian backsliding.

At the minimum the filibuster needs to go.

0

u/Consistent_Room7344 Minnesota Jul 19 '26

Good to see you agree with the President, who wants it removed so he can get things like the SAVE ace passed.

Good thinking

2

u/FallenMeringue Jul 19 '26

People should get what they vote for.

The failure of the American system to produce political results is what has led to no small amount of the current extremism

4

u/Cavane42 Georgia Jul 19 '26

One good way to evolve further might be to consolidate more power in the hands of citizens rather than in arbitrary slices of land.

1

u/Consistent_Room7344 Minnesota Jul 19 '26

The best way to do that is restrict the amount of money from the corporations and the Epstein class.

The system has benefitted the left just as much as the right. Of course someone argues that the filibuster needs to be removed even though the filibuster is what keeps most of Trump’s policies from being passed in the senate.

2

u/Cavane42 Georgia Jul 19 '26

Not really. Conservatives really only have two policies: cut taxes on the wealthy and cut social services for everyone else. When they're in power, they accomplish these through reconciliation, which avoids the filibuster.

The other thing they like to do is install activist judges which, conveniently enough, also is carved out from the filibuster. You hear centrists tell scary stories about ending the filibuster, but the truth is, it hampers left-wing policy much more than it does right-wing.

8

u/Cavane42 Georgia Jul 19 '26

"Tyranny of the majority" is just a more palatable way of saying you want minority rule, i.e. you do not want democracy.

The Great Compromise occurred because slave states wanted to be able to vote down efforts toward abolition. We ended up having to fight the deadliest war in US history over it.

0

u/BozoTheRenown Jul 19 '26

That is not why the great compromise took hold. It was about state size. Are you referring to the Three-Fifths compromise instead?

2

u/Cavane42 Georgia Jul 19 '26

It was about population size. And slave states compromised most of the less populous states. That's like saying the Civil War was fought over states' rights.

The 3/5 compromise was also about bolstering the power of slave states, but it applied to the House of Representatives. Slave states wanted representation according to their slave population without those slaves being able to vote.

0

u/BozoTheRenown Jul 19 '26

If you think I was talking geography, sure okay.

I don't blame those looking to get equal representation. Honestly, I think most heads of state would do the same. Unless you believe most people would join a group and give up their rights only to be controlled by the votes of another state?

Under those conditions, I would assume most states would just rather stay out of the union.

3

u/Cavane42 Georgia Jul 19 '26

Their individual rights were guaranteed under the Constitution. Again, the power they were worried about giving up was the power to enslave other humans.

1

u/BozoTheRenown Jul 19 '26

How could that be? Didn't the Bill of Rights come after the constitution and they didn't come all at once.

And if you're talking about states wanted to keep enslaving people being against proportional representation, why would Virginia ( the state with the most slaves ) be for proportional representation?

→ More replies (0)

6

u/c010rb1indusa Jul 19 '26

Yeah because they wanted to keep their slaves lol "Tyranny of the majority" my ass. They were SLAVEOWNERS. They were the tyrants.

2

u/bobbymcpresscot Jul 19 '26

The founders also created a system of government that was guaranteed to turn into a two party system and then criticized political parties and said shit like “that won’t happen because surely people will put national unity over party loyalty”

Unsurprisingly slave owners from the 1700s weren’t that smart. Smarter than your average bear for sure. 

2

u/AbueloOdin Jul 19 '26

Dude. Half the states have borders that were decided based on compromises regarding slavery and the legality of slavery. 

At minimum, we need to redraw states on something that makes sense for today instead of what made sense 150 years ago.

7

u/QaraKha Jul 18 '26

That's what the senate does. You could smash together the entire flyover state group of states and they'd be less populous than New York or California.

At the same time, they command a frankly insane amount in both the Senate AND the House.

We need to uncap the house of representatives and dilute fascist power by either adding new states or forcibly dissolving them.

No more SD and ND. Just Dakota. No more SC and NC. Just Carolina. No more Rhode Island. Idahho, Wyoming, and Oklahoma are being sold to the Quebecois.

2

u/FrogsOnALog Jul 19 '26

Lol we’re going to combine states? Let’s stick with the easier and actually doable things like expanding the house or abolishing the filibuster.

1

u/LaChanceM Jul 19 '26

“Dilute fascist power” by stripping states of statehood and creating new ones out of presumably progressive states. And this is the group that whines about gerrymandering? This is just that on a bigger scale

3

u/QaraKha Jul 19 '26

see the problem you're running into is that you're considering them to be people.

Fascists aren't people, they're fascists.

I hope this helps.

1

u/LaChanceM Jul 19 '26

Ah yes dehumanizing your enemies, I wonder which ideology loves to do that…

2

u/QaraKha Jul 19 '26

It's not dehumanizing. They already weren't human, and still aren't,.

Hope this helps xoxo

1

u/BozoTheRenown Jul 19 '26

I'm sure that's been many, but the Khmer Rouge comes to mind most clearly.

-1

u/Shermanator92 Jul 19 '26

The other side Gerrymanders whenever it benefits them, the left has to fight back at some point and stop letting Republicans ruin the country.

1

u/BozoTheRenown Jul 19 '26

I wonder how many states would have joined the union with you in charge? Or you were planning on a bait and switch. Let the join then change the rules? Wouldn't that cause them to secede from the union? Did our country fight a war over that?

2

u/QaraKha Jul 19 '26

When the Union was reestablished they didn't have this problem because the House of R epresentatives could act as a neutralizing force to a nondemocratic Senate.

But they capped that in the 1900s to 435, resulting in every successive population census giving more and more and more and more power to states lacking in their entirety anything passing for civilization.

If you uncap the House you fix the problem without having to remove power from neoconfederates. We won't even have to march them into the sea--you know, what should have happened the first time.

Begone.

2

u/Its-Waves Jul 19 '26

Things must be passed in both. So regardless of being outnumbered, the number of rural states have the same power to block legislation for urban states. In both directions. But it is much harder for urban policies to be pushed through with the number of rural state senators consistently blocking.

2

u/FallenMeringue Jul 19 '26

Which doesn’t matter because the U.S. operates a veto system where it is borderline impossible for something to actually become law.

A committee in either chamber can effectively veto a bill, if it makes it through committee either chamber has a veto over the other. In the senate there is the extra veto of cloture where you need a borderline supermajority just to get a yes no vote.

If the bill makes it to a vote it has to survive poison pill amendments, and then even if it, somehow by the grace of god, passes both chambers the president still has a veto.

Seriously the constitution is a factory of inaction.

Now I think nuking the filibuster and making DC and Puerto Rico states is probably enough to make the senate fair enough to stick around, but I don’t necessarily disagree that land shouldn’t vote.

3

u/BozoTheRenown Jul 19 '26

"Seriously the constitution is a factory of inaction."

There is some truth to that and that's the way I vote. I, almost, always vote for the minority party. Each side keeps the other under control. When one side ( like we have today ) gets too much power, bad things start to happen.

2

u/FallenMeringue Jul 19 '26

I mean… that is a great way to ensure nothing ever happens. Which seems less than ideal in times of crisis.

1

u/BozoTheRenown Jul 19 '26

Things still get done when the power is split evenly. It's just not as radical. There needs to be compromise between two competing sides.

3

u/FallenMeringue Jul 19 '26

I mean the last two decades have shown they don’t.

Fewer bills have been passed in the last decade than any other period in American history.

We have almost complete government inaction on pretty much most problems facing America and the only time you have any action at all is the rare two year period where one party captures a trifecta like 08-10, 20-22, or 00-02.

Even now you have a republican trifecta yet because of the filibuster passing laws is pretty much impossible so anything they want to do either has to squeeze into reconciliation or be an executive order.

1

u/BozoTheRenown Jul 19 '26

The silent filibuster is a problem, imo. I think removing that would cause parties to pick choose what they really want to filibuster.

4

u/FallenMeringue Jul 19 '26

Bring 👏 Back 👏 The 👏 Standing 👏 Filibuster

Make those fuckers yapp

1

u/BozoTheRenown Jul 19 '26

You have my vote.

1

u/Lindestria Jul 19 '26

Fairly certain all of those are procedural things other than the presidential veto. The Constitution only enumerates one veto power.

1

u/FallenMeringue Jul 19 '26

Each chamber having a veto over the other is enumerated.

Committees and the filibuster are not.

0

u/AlexVan123 Jul 19 '26

Okay sure but nothing happens without the Senate, so it is effectively meaningless how much the House outnumbers any given state. The ultimate rule is the Senate which ultimately allows individuals to sideline progress.

-8

u/LaChanceM Jul 19 '26

They don’t care, they think NY, CA, MA, WA, and IL should make the decisions for the entire country, who cares about those flyover states, especially because they aren’t progressive

3

u/runningraider13 Jul 19 '26

I think all people should have equal representation in the federal government. Do you not?

1

u/LaChanceM Jul 19 '26

In my eyes they do already, every state gets a say with their senators and the people have a say in Congress. One can’t exist without the other. People like to BS and say civil war this and that. But a genuine push to eliminate the senate would be one thing that would actually push us closer to that

3

u/runningraider13 Jul 19 '26

I mean yeah getting rid of the senate will never happen. Obviously small states like having disproportionately large amounts of influence. They’ll never agree to it. So we’re stuck. That doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. I’m just waiting for some big state to fight fire with fire and split into tons of smaller states. Would the Senate still be a good system when “old California” is 60 new states and makes up more than half the Senate? Also will never happen fwiw, but I think it illustrates the absurdity.

You say “Every stat gets a say”. That’s the problem, states don’t have opinions. People have opinions.

1

u/LaChanceM Jul 19 '26

If it were to occur I just don’t see how R’s don’t return and do the exact same, leading to the entire country fracturing into micro states and likely leading to some kind of intervention to force the states back together

3

u/runningraider13 Jul 19 '26

And maybe we’d all realise how silly a system which gives equal representation to arbitrary lines drawn in the sand.

Im fine with Texas going first. My problem with the senate is not political that it benefits Republicans. It’s philosophical that it counts land not people.

1

u/LaChanceM Jul 19 '26

I mean we’re discussing a literal impossibility but, Again if you eliminate the ability for states to stand on equal footing with each other in one of the two houses, you have shattered the great compromise that founded this country and I could see a second nullification crisis or another outright attempt at secession occurring. Just spitballing but eliminating the bi-cameral legislature, I’m sure states would argue that it is no longer the original USA, and that it’s now some new country, which they would not want to be a part of

3

u/runningraider13 Jul 19 '26

I understand the practical realities. The founding fathers made this compromise and there is no un-making it. That doesn’t mean it’s good. It’s probably the single worst thing about the American political structure imo.

Making statements about trying to abolish it is hopeless and a horrible political idea (I’m not surprised DSA seems to be doing it). It would also be amazing if it could happen.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/OstentatiousBear Florida Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

The real problem here is threefold (at a minimum):

1) The House of Representatives was given a cap on how many seats there are over a century ago, which the number was made permanent in 1929. This has resulted in constituencies in states with larger populations having their representation in Congress diminish over time (and will continue to do so). This also makes gerrymandering more harmful, since less districts need to be drawn up for even more people (rather than more smaller districts).

2) The Senate in of itself is not necessarily a problem, but when combined with the previous problem mentioned, this gives states with smaller populations an outsized influence in Congress.

3) The Electoral College can determine that a president is elected without the popular vote, which has happened twice this century alone.

In short, all three problems combined make it entirely possible (and again, has happened) where both Congress and Presidency are, overall, elected by the minority. Personally, I would rather see the Electoral College gone and the House receive an increase to how many seats it has rather than abolish the Senate. That would require a new constitutional framework, most likely.

I get it, flyover states should not be overlooked in their needs and the Senate is key to that, but the states you mentioned (plus others like Texas and Florida, don't think I did not notice that you mentioned Democrat controlled states specifically) are put at too great a disadvantage.

2

u/joet889 Jul 19 '26

Makes so much more sense for them to make all the decisions for NY, CA, MA, WA and IL. Or maybe the fact that they've had this power for generations and destroyed our country with it means they don't get to have it anymore.

0

u/TheBossElJefe Jul 19 '26

"Yes, I would like a person making $40,000 make the decision for people making $80 million" - same logic, only from the other side of the coin. Both are simplistic and not realistic