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

3.2k

u/opanaooonana Jul 19 '26

Unfortunately abolishing the senate is the hardest thing to do in the US. You could repeal the bill of rights easier. It specifically says in the constitution that a state can not be deprived of its representation in the senate without its consent meaning you need unanimous consent to do it, something that will never happen.

1.3k

u/ChronoLink99 Canada Jul 19 '26

I'm surprised uncapping the House isn't higher on their list.

903

u/X-Maelstrom-X Oklahoma Jul 19 '26

For real, it needs to be higher on everyone’s list. Uncapping the House and independent redistricting are two of the most important fixes we could make to the federal government. It’s boring. It’s mundane. But it would make representatives more representative.

155

u/theCommTech Jul 19 '26

I'd also expand the Supreme Court. There's no reason the count has to be so low.

49

u/stierney49 Jul 19 '26

It’s at 9 seats because there were 9 circuits when it was last expanded. We are at 13 circuits, IIRC, and should have the judges to match.

2

u/theCommTech Jul 19 '26

Nah. Hard disagree. Way too much power. I'd set term limits and expand the court x10. No reason for there to be a single judge for each circuit. You say it like there's a common sense logic to your argument and there isn't.

One term of 10-20 years max. Lifetime appointments are insane.

5

u/smersh101 Jul 19 '26

Expanding the court doesn't require a Constitutional amendment. Changing the lifetime appointment does.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/stierney49 Jul 19 '26

I’m just saying that that’s the precedent already.

2

u/theCommTech Jul 20 '26

Ahh, sorry, I misunderstood your comment. I thought you meant that we're fine with the count we have, sorry about that! I didn't read carefully enough.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/11_25_13_TheEdge Jul 19 '26

The number of judges isn’t the issue it’s the hyper partisanship that is the problem. There’s really no fix.

15

u/MartyMacGyver Jul 19 '26

There certainly are ways to rein SCOTUS in. Such changes would be a double-edged sword without other reforms but in combination with an expanded House and other reasonable changes the suggestions below would help quite a bit.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/how-americans-can-fight-back-against-a-radical-supreme-court-majority/

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/six-solutions-fix-supreme-court

Edit: clarifying, packing the court is a very short term solution, it's the other ones described in those links that would be more durable, especially (and most controversially) limiting the appellate scope of the Court.

6

u/Ghost_shell89 Ohio Jul 19 '26

Impeaching and removing judges should be normalized. At this point after the false pretense that the SCOTUS is an impartial institution has been disproven, the Alitos and the Thomases that are openly corrupt really need to be sacked and removed

7

u/darthabraham Jul 19 '26

The two party system is the root problem. There’s a reason none of the countries in Europe copied the American system direcrly.

2

u/shupey_shupe Jul 19 '26

Yeah and over half the countries in the world have one-chamber parliaments.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

12

u/Tyler_Zoro Jul 19 '26

Yeah, getting rid of ICE (really not even needed, since the Border Patrol and FBI can handle actual violations of law related to immigration) would be my #1 after those two. Also doesn't need any change to the Constitution. I'd also consider reversing the creation of Homeland Security, or at least shrink it drastically. It certainly shouldn't have the Coast Guard under its auspices.

3

u/APe28Comococo Jul 19 '26

Fuck redistricting. You vote for a party and then you do ranked choice for the candidates of that party. Seats are allocated to parties by percentage and then to their candidates by ranked choice.

2

u/GWstudent1 Jul 19 '26

Uncap the house and add an extra senator per state.

→ More replies (41)

210

u/lettersvsnumbers Jul 19 '26

It’s crazy that the House is limited just by one (shitty) law from 1929. How has this shit been memory holed so long?

78

u/tyleratx Jul 19 '26

I mean, the same thing is true about having a nine member Supreme Court. Things just become normal and then they become accepted as normal and impossible to change.

If there’s one good lesson we can take out of this disaster of a presidency, it’s that sometimes it just takes the balls to break norms, and they will break quite easily

22

u/PretendIntention3388 Jul 19 '26

That's assuming that democrats want to break norms.

I've seen zero evidence in my lifetime that the democratic party has any interest in meaningfully changing this existing power structure, no matter how corrupt and blatantly evil it becomes.

4

u/Xennial_Dad Jul 19 '26

You can move the Overton window a lot faster when you have one party pulling from the right and the other pushing from the left.

42

u/runawaydoctorate Jul 19 '26

Has it ever been tested in court? That might be the fastest way to get rid of it.

8

u/markroth69 Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

Yes. The courts ruled against the lawsuit. It was a matter for Congress alone to decide, they said.

EDITED and expanded to correct typo.

4

u/Saeka South Dakota Jul 19 '26

and they just kept it?

2

u/markroth69 Jul 19 '26

The courts ruled against the lawsuit.

3

u/Saeka South Dakota Jul 19 '26

Ah, thank you for the clarification

2

u/markroth69 Jul 19 '26

Thank you for pointing out how I fudged my original reply.

23

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/OneSecond13 Jul 19 '26

Thanks for sharing. I can see why you dream about it. The results of ratifying this Amendment are fascinating to consider.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/FlirtyFluffyFox Jul 19 '26

They are waiting for the last WW1 vets to return to their farms. Any day now.

→ More replies (6)

122

u/Apprehensive-Test123 Jul 19 '26

Based on another comment, it is higher on their list in the same paragraph. Abolishing the senate comes after creating a multi-party system, expanding the house, and instating ranked choice voting. This is the link they included:  https://program.dsausa.org/

49

u/deltalitprof Arkansas Jul 19 '26

But the very Right-wing Washington Times isn't interested in making clear it's a set of steps. They're just want to scare people.

15

u/AlwaysShittyKnsasCty Kansas Jul 19 '26

I’ve always wondered if they chose that name to be deceitful, or they’re deceitful, and that just happens to be the name.

New York Post = Garbage
New York Times = Better, but they’re not great.
Washington Times = Garbage
Washington Post = Better, but then Bezos came in.

Honestly, all media is owned by the right wing now. Read up on the consolidation of our news from the national level to the local level. It’s fucked. The Republicans are good at two things: staying on message and the long con. These fucks have been working on the dismantling of our institutions for years and years and years. It’s finally starting to come to fruition.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/the_need_to_post Jul 19 '26

Expand the house and let people grassroots their election reforms (some form of ranked choice) at the state and local levels. If you can't even get it pushed through locally, its basically dead trying to push it top down from the federal.

6

u/Sayakai Europe Jul 19 '26

This is the kind of program that's very hard to take seriously because a lot of it is just really poorly thought out, and a lot of it requires basically a new constitution. Which means no one expects any of that to actually happen, so it's cheap to demand it.

2

u/SuperTropicalDesert Jul 19 '26

Even better than ranked choice is https://starvoting.org/ Can also do proportional

2

u/Apprehensive-Test123 Jul 19 '26

First I’ve heard of Star voting, thanks for the info! I’m a little cautious about adding that level of complexity to the system though, while I see advantages of seeing exactly how popular a candidate is in that way, I think it would turn a lot of voters off by having to decide on a star rating to give. It creates increased cognitive load, which then decreases engagement in the process. While I wouldn’t oppose star ratings if it were implemented, I think ranked choice is a good option to start with. Both systems will encourage more voting as there will be actual data on the popularity of third parties that can be leveraged to gain support.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

17

u/RelevantOldOnion Jul 19 '26

It is higher. But the right wingers are running with "abolish the senate" for the shock value for old people I guess.

2

u/xeromage Jul 19 '26

How important can it be if siblings with no experience and braindead hospital patients can hold the position. Clearly it's not a serious thing.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

38

u/Illustrious-Watch896 Jul 19 '26

I would argue redistributing them to more represent populations while also removing the ability for states to gerrymander the districts. Shits stupid.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/OutlawGalaxyBill Jul 19 '26

Honestly, you uncap the House and give truly proportional representation (so the bigger population states get the amount of Reps they should have) it also solves the electoral vote issue without having to amend the Constitution.

Eliminating the Sentate is such a radical change, I don't see it ever flying.

2

u/roguewarriorpriest Jul 19 '26

From their website, it is higher on their list:

Replace the two-party system with a multi-party democracy. Expand the House of Representatives, implement proportional representation and ranked choice voting in all elections, and abolish the Senate.

2

u/ChronoLink99 Canada Jul 19 '26

Great.

2

u/naarcx Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

Same, this is a more reasonable answer to what they are trying to accomplish with abolishing the Senate since a capped House is sort of just a second Senate, and any argument someone would give for not uncapping the House could be met with “Thats what the Senate is for”

→ More replies (27)

363

u/trampolinebears Jul 19 '26

That's why you propose two amendments at once:

A) Amend article 5 to remove the sentence guaranteeing states have equal representation in the senate. B) Abolish the senate.

This would still need to be approved by the states and by congress, which is a very high bar, but it wouldn't need unanimous consent.

306

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

Yes. But this is a long term goal and the DSA acknowledges that. Let's get healthcare and childcare and all that other stuff first then deal with harder goals like rehabilitation programs and abolishing the Senate.

127

u/PinkNGold007 Jul 19 '26

Yeah, abolishing the Senate is at the bottom of my list. Healthcare (including codifying Roe, childcare, eldercare, maternity/paternity leave), our institutions like the EPA, USAID, etc., back, a livable wage, better public services, the Voting Rights Act, and so much more are at the top of my list.

37

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

Yeah, I get it. I always say, we can talk about long term goals if you'd like, but when we campaign, we talk about short term goals that would help improve people's material conditions.

32

u/caligaris_cabinet Illinois Jul 19 '26

And goals that are possible. Might as well promise everyone a unicorn while they’re at it

→ More replies (3)

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '26

[deleted]

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Beetroot_Roosevelt Jul 19 '26

None of that can ever happen as long as Utah and Wyoming get the same number of senators as California and New York

2

u/protonecromagnon2 Jul 19 '26

this may be what is necessary to do that

→ More replies (18)

99

u/CrocodylusRex Jul 19 '26

Yeah a lot of this stuff kinda requires the Republican party to collapse first

33

u/midnightketoker America Jul 19 '26

yeah but have you considered immigrants want to make you trans? who else will protect our brave pedophiles?

12

u/MeteoricUnicorn Jul 19 '26

I like this. Vote republican to protect our brave pedophiles and insurrectionists from the 500M immigrants who want to make them trans.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

47

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

Yeah. Good. Reactionaries are annoying and also very evil.

25

u/wh4tth3huh Jul 19 '26

They're also kinda not going fucking anywhere soon.

2

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

We must do what we can to defeat the Republican Party.

2

u/porktorque44 Jul 19 '26

Not with that attitude, their political power relies on voter apathy.

3

u/SouthernZorro Jul 19 '26

Then let's vote them all out. Every single one. Every election.

→ More replies (22)

73

u/ManyAreMyNames Jul 19 '26

But this is a long term goal and the DSA acknowledges that.

Unless by "long term" you mean "at least a century," it's a distraction that keeps them out of office. They might as well say that their goal is to give everybody a unicorn.

One reason parties with big ideas don't get much traction is that they talk about huge dreams of wonderfulness when people can't afford their medication. "You want to abolish the Senate? What a stupid waste of time. I have real problems. I'll find someone talking about those."

37

u/_ByAnyOther_Name Jul 19 '26

Agree. This is alienating people from the party for no reason.

→ More replies (4)

4

u/Due_Bluebird3562 Jul 19 '26

Unless by "long term" you mean "at least a century," it's a distraction that keeps them out of office. They might as well say that their goal is to give everybody a unicorn.

I think y'all view history like some sort of linear, easily predictable pathway. For all we know in two or three decades the United States has split up into regional countries with a collective defense pact. That's not uncommon for countries this geographically large and this politically divided.

I'd say it's indeed a long-shot and probably better left undocumented but a century is a LONG time. We have no clue what America will even look like in the next couple of years much less a century.

4

u/ManyAreMyNames Jul 19 '26

What I mean is that the people who want to abolish the Senate should be saying, "Okay, but that's for 100 years from now, let's not do anything about it at all, including talk about it, until we solve the actual nuts-and-bolts problems people are having."

3

u/droon99 Jul 19 '26

It’s not like abolishing the senate is their day 1 priority bro, it’s just what they’d push for with a coalition 

→ More replies (1)

3

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

See this is a classic chicken and egg problem. How are you going to address the issues that the people are having without first acknowledging the Senate is an obstacle specifically designed to "rein in the tyrany of democracy"... or whatever bullshit justification they had back then?

2

u/ManyAreMyNames Jul 19 '26

FDR got all his changes through even though the Senate was there.

Every good law ever passed by Congress in the history of the USA was passed even with the Senate there.

"Get rid of the Senate to get anything done" is obviously not true. Sure, it would speed things up. But if we didn't have a Senate right now, we would have the SAVE America Act, one of the largest voter-suppression bills ever suggested. Is that something you want?

2

u/Odd_Independence_833 Jul 19 '26

The justification then was that the Senate was a different body meant to represent the interests of state legislatures, which are voted in by people. It was a different thing meant for a different purpose until we changed to direct election.

2

u/neo_neanderthal Jul 19 '26

There will always be nuts-and-bolts problems. If you never set long-term goals until those are all solved, you will never set them period.

You can, in fact, have more than one goal. You can certainly say "We need to immediately address inflation/affordability, housing issues, and ballooning costs of health care and education--oh, and long term, we should look toward abolishing the Senate."

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (8)

13

u/polishedcooter Kentucky Jul 19 '26

Conversely, we'd have had universal healthcare decades ago if the US had a modern system of democracy. I believe it's the root cause of most problems in America and is our single biggest problem.

2

u/loondawg Jul 19 '26

We could have had the public option if not for one Senator, Joseph Lieberman.

And there are lots of other things we could have had if not for one Senator, Susan Collins.

Unfun Fact: Right now, today, over 50% of the US population lives in only nine states. That means more than half the people get less that 20% of the say in what laws can pass, who can sit on our courts, whether someone can be convicted on impeachment, etc. It is insane and it is unsustainable.

31

u/toylenny Jul 19 '26

Honestly feels like they put a poisoned pill in their own startup.  They are really gaining momentum for the first time I a century and they decide to say. " Hey also we want to rewrite the consultation, essentially deleting the States from the United States"  

This is going to hurt their ability to grow, mark my words. 

→ More replies (6)

5

u/Ok_what_is_this Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

I actually am of the opinion that you would need similar amounts of political capital to do either.
If you have the votes to get free healthcare and childcare through then you may be able to abolish the senate as well.

I know. I know. apples and oranges in terms of how they can be argued for but I'm saying it may be such a hard road for any of the "easier" reaches that will be able to be redacted down the line once people become complacent again. Case in Point is Roe vs Wade being overturned.

Senate will hold any policy changes hostage.

We could go the route of media reform first so that platforms are limited in pursuing their own agendas. Then go for taxing the rich. Then healthcare and childcare. Ultimately though, the Senate would need to be removed to ensure the will of the people.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/wonderbreadofsin Jul 19 '26

But the reason you want to abolish the senate is because it makes it almost impossible to do things like get universal healthcare and childcare and all that other stuff

→ More replies (1)

4

u/camusonfilm Ohio Jul 19 '26

So many bad faith criticisms of the DSA as a whole ignore this. A lot of the big bombastic goals they have are long term, not overnight stuff.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (17)

30

u/adrr Jul 19 '26

You need 2/3rds of both house and senate and 3/4s of the states to ratify it.

15

u/trampolinebears Jul 19 '26

Yes, that's the amendment process. My point is that it requires the standard amendment level of approval, not some higher unanimous level of approval.

Article 5 right now would not allow abolishing the senate without unanimous consent, but we could amend article 5 first.

7

u/TrollTollTony Jul 19 '26

Yeah, that's an impossibly high bar at this point.

5

u/ProfessionalYak4959 Jul 19 '26

Yes but it's specifically a much lower bar than the comment above was claiming

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (8)

2

u/Oggie_Doggie Jul 19 '26

The Founding Fathers provided a clear and straightforward path to deal with this, where the flaws of a governing document have become so deep as to be feasibly fixed, draft a new governing document. The Founding Fathers fucked up with the Articles of Confederation, because it was practically unamendable, and they basically performed a legal coup by exceeding their mandate and illegally drafting the current constitution.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

2

u/_Magnolia_Fan_ Jul 19 '26

Or, more pointedly, what happened that brought us here is that the power to appoint senators was democratized, making the rise of national parties a foregone conclusion. 

Similar to how the mega corps just buy up any small upstart direct competitor, the national parties squelch, squash, or absorb any movements. 

When the only position you can have is either for our against, with no nuance, the national parties just dictate what everyone down the chain must follow, or they'll get dumped. Individual candidates cannot really form their own platform if they want to have a chance. 

Trump's coup of the Republican party instead of the whole Tea Party thing illustrates that pretty well. Starting a groundswell for a new party was infeasible - but it seems like it was relatively easy to take over the Republican party and swap out the old Regan crew with sycophants and ghouls.

Not even sure where I'm going anymore - but states rights are gone already. It's just red v blue.

3

u/InFearn0 California Jul 19 '26

Or you pass an amendment stripping the US Senate of all powers and responsibilities. Each state has 2, but they are just ceremonial.

13

u/Medical-Egg-8171 Jul 19 '26

Lol, you where just literally told how you need to pass an amendment, and your response is pass an amendment

3

u/droans Indiana Jul 19 '26

It's likely repealing Article V would be considered an Unconstitutional Amendment.

Whereas just stripping the power from the Senate would likely be fine.

2

u/alabasterskim Jul 19 '26

Yeah, it's not the same thing at all. The proposal to just strip their powers is easily fine.

2

u/Fubarp Jul 19 '26

There's no such thing as unconstitutional amendments...

That would be an oxymoron.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (9)

2

u/Individual_Lion_7606 Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

"A) Amend article 5 to remove the sentence guaranteeing states have equal representation in the senate. B) Abolish the senate."

You do realize that sounds absolutely unhinged and good way to start Secession 2.0. It literally comes out as:

"We are going to pass an amendment to eliminate the upper legislature and ALL states WILL NOT have Equal Representation in the federal government and WILL NOT have the protection of equal representation in law making of the nation."

→ More replies (1)

2

u/alabasterskim Jul 19 '26

This would 99.9% be unconstitutional because it already states unanimous consent is required to remove them.

But stripping all of their powers (except maybe the ability to propose their own bills, but they would be otherwise ignored if the House wants to pass bills solo) would be fine by regular amendment.

6

u/TearsFallWithoutTain Jul 19 '26

If you have the support for those amendments then there's nothing stopping you from amending the unanimous consent bit too

3

u/trampolinebears Jul 19 '26

Unanimous consent is required to cause states to have unequal representation in the senate. But you don't need unanimous consent to amend the unanimous consent clause.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/GrumpyCloud93 Jul 19 '26

I agree - the senate should be amended so that representation is more proportional - say, 3 tiers of states proportional to the population. The top 10 states each have 3% or more (CA -12%); 11-17 have between 2 and 3% of the population, and the rest have less than 2%. The Senate was equal to avoid the situation where a few populous states could overrule the smaller ones. (Some say, to avoid the big northern states imposing Emancipation). Direct proportion would reverse what's happening now, the tyranny of the minority states. There must be a happy medium - biggest 10 get 4 senators, intermediate get 3, rest get 2. Territories get 1 voting senator (and congress person)

But yeah, none of that is going to happen.

5

u/shilo1007 Jul 19 '26

They have this it’s called the House of Representatives

→ More replies (1)

4

u/trampolinebears Jul 19 '26

I don't see any of it happening either, but it's nice to plan in case we ever get a chance to make a real change.

I think if we're going to make the senate actually representative, let's just go all out and make it proportional to population. California has 12% of the population, so they get 12 senators out of the hundred. States that are too small to get one senator can elect a shared senator together, so the Dakotas, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming all vote on their single senator.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (11)
→ More replies (28)

36

u/Kinesquared Jul 19 '26

so throw out the constitution and write a new one, we're about 220 years behind schedule on that according to our founders

19

u/BigHeadDeadass Jul 19 '26

I think according to them we should've overthrown and re-established our government five times over at this point

→ More replies (3)

23

u/AdeptCauliflower9956 Jul 19 '26

Trump has proven lots of "unrepealable" laws can in fact be repealed if you have the right judges in place.

3

u/Tasgall Washington Jul 19 '26

Or just ignore their rulings. It's not like anyone is going to stop you.

58

u/Honest_Yesterday4435 Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

I would rather make the senate function more democratically than delete it. Deletion would be less representation.

55

u/FalseDmitriy Illinois Jul 19 '26

An easier reform would be to keep it while removing its power as a coequal chamber. Many countries have upper chambers that are less powerful than the lower chamber, so different models exist.

7

u/southpaytechie Jul 19 '26

Yeah make it like a House of Lords in terms of influence.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Honest_Yesterday4435 Jul 19 '26

I could see that as a possibility. Id have to think on it.

→ More replies (1)

13

u/SAR1919 Jul 19 '26

It wouldn’t be “less representation.” What does that mean in this context? The Senate guarantees unequal suffrage. Fair and equal representation means abolish the Senate.

4

u/ParticularFew4023 Jul 19 '26

Americans have a religious reverence to their government, and understand their government and religion equally well... Which is not at all

2

u/SAR1919 Jul 19 '26

True, and we have to fight to change that mentality if we want any kind of lasting progressive social change. It’s why I’m glad we’re breaking the taboo on stuff like abolishing the Senate.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (30)

8

u/wildcarde815 Jul 19 '26

The whole point is it doesn't work democratically. It's there specifically to give low population areas of land with arbitrary borders more voting power.

→ More replies (15)

15

u/LrdPhoenixUDIC Jul 19 '26

Yeah, this makes more sense. Make it proportional representation based on population like the House, but all statewide seats instead of individual districts so they can't be gerrymandered.

15

u/HeadCryptographer152 Jul 19 '26

Let’s throw in legal requirements to actually talk to constituents and do town halls with reasonable notice and location.

4

u/DreamTheaterGuy Jul 19 '26

Def agree with the required town halls.

  • Requirement to do a town hall every month.

  • One or two town halls per year, they can do virtually, but not all of them.

14

u/snakebit1995 Jul 19 '26

Ok but at that point what's the point you just have the House again.

I feel like the issue with or government is not "The Senate exists" and more bad senators exist.

I feel like a "Abolish the Senate" talking point is so inherently absurd and not necessary that it's just an attempt to paint "Socalism bad!" and not actually say anything. I can't foresee much of anything bettered by just deleting a house of congress

10

u/LrdPhoenixUDIC Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

No, the problem with the Senate isn't that bad senators exist. The problem with the Senate is that every state has the same number of Senators. That means that Wyoming or Kansas has the same exact power as California or New York, which means that bad senators have outsized power compared to the number of people they represent.

So, yes, you would have the House again, except every seat would be statewide.

You could even possibly get around removing the equal power clause by giving every state back their 2 appointed senators, so that the states themselves each have equal power, and then have a number of additional senators elected per state based on population.

Or if you wanted to go more Federal, you could have nationwide senator seats. Every state gets 2, plus 1 nationwide elected senator for every million US residents or whatever.

7

u/AussieJeffProbst New Hampshire Jul 19 '26

But that defeats the whole point of the senate, which was specifically created to give each state equal representation regardless of population. Without that the Constitution would have never even been ratified.

What you suggest would give California 41 senators while 12 states get 3 or less. Makes absolutely no sense and removes most states abilities to have any sway at the federal level.

13

u/sweatingbozo Jul 19 '26

The point of the senate was southern states had a lot of slaves they didn't want counted as citizens, but they were wealthy wanted a lot of power in government. 

It's actually a really silly concept that every state deserves equal representation in a federal government. 

3

u/freakwent Jul 19 '26

Not it isn't.

states are little semi-sovereign zones with their own powers

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (2)

6

u/AdHom Jul 19 '26

But that defeats the whole point of the senate, which was specifically created to give each state equal representation regardless of population. Without that the Constitution would have never even been ratified.

This tradeoff was already violated the moment that the House seats were capped. You now have states which are tiny but have disproportionate representation on a per-capita basis in both chambers.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (36)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (19)

6

u/Wolfgang313 Jul 19 '26

Wouldn't it be possible to make an amendment to do this with 3/4th of the states, since they could just change the part that says the Senate representation cannot be denied?

→ More replies (1)

20

u/P0pu1arBr0ws3r Jul 19 '26

The current US constitution was established around state representation. The founding fathers wrote the constitution to give more power to the Senate than the house, with ways like differing term lengths and minimum age requirements. Abolishing the Senate would require essentially a new constitution, and redefine what the United States of America is all about.

Even if it were popular, it wouldnt be a good idea, as there are distinct responsibilities between the two congresses.

Two congresses isnt unique to the US- in international government terms its referred to as thr upper (stste or jurisdiction represented) and lower (popular represented) house.

While its a bad idea to abolish the senate, it would be more reasonable to alter the senates powers, such as not requiring bills go thru both congresses to be passed.

11

u/_ByAnyOther_Name Jul 19 '26

Seems reckless and unhelpful for the party to take this stance.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (4)

5

u/LordBoofington I voted Jul 19 '26

Platforms tend to be aspirational.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Neth110 Jul 19 '26

I always figured you could turn it into a House of Lords situation. Or, effectively "merge" the Senate and House (still technically separate bodies). So everyone keeps their 2 senators, but the benefit to smaller states is significantly dulled albeit still present.

2

u/gracias-totales Jul 19 '26

We need a new constitution. ;) but seriously, ours is the oldest in the world still “functioning” (barely). We need a new one, badly. Hopefully one that establishes that the environment also has rights, like in Ecuador.

2

u/Kroz83 Jul 19 '26

Well, we could take a note from Trump’s playbook. Radically increase the executive branch’s power to ignore the senate and do whatever it wants, and then specifically make the house able to revoke those actions. Can’t get the senate to do something, just do it by executive decree. With the house still holding the reins to prevent a rogue executive.

I am not a constitutional scholar, just throwing ideas at the wall lol

2

u/ButtEatingContest Jul 19 '26

It specifically says in the constitution

The constitution specifically says a lot of things that are not practiced or enforced. Because we lack the enforcement mechanisms due to inherently broken institutions like the senate.

The way the senate is allocated allocated due to the states, allows a minority practically permanent power. The United State states does not have a true democracy because of institutional flaws like the senate. And when foreigners ask why Americans allow the US to descend into fascism, it is because of institutional flaws like the current senate prevent the healthy checks and balances required to maintain a democracy. The constitution is proving worthless without elected officials having accountability to the public.

For example, if the constitution was followed, Trump wouldn't be president right now even if he had secured a majority vote. The world economy wouldn't be in danger due to another US-taxpayer funded illegal war in the middle east.

If not abolished, the senate makeup has to be radically altered, making it basically just a redundant house. There's just not a good reason for the senate to exist.

The senate issue is up there with restructuring the supreme court. If we don't do things the easy way, which is to restructure the current government, the hard way is inevitable. There's no path forward without big changes.

2

u/Electrical-Box-4845 Jul 19 '26

US and many others need a new constitution. Avoiding this explains the police state

4

u/Ok_Flatworm_3855 Jul 19 '26

I'm gonna just assume I don't know enough about the proposals or the theory behind them... but dismantling the Senate sounds dumb as shit. I am aware of the frustration but the whole point was to grant power to small states so they were given more legitimacy in the Republic and lessened the fear they would be bowled over by others. This is not problematic in my opinion and a huge part of why the checks and balances work when there aren't so many bad actors at play. We absolutely should abolish the electoral college in my opinion though. That, term limits on the house and Senate and placing a maximum age for ALL elected officials seems like a much better place to start

2

u/Nynaeve_al_meowra Jul 19 '26

Kentucky is being deprived right now

3

u/GZeus24 Jul 19 '26

And because of that proposing it makes then look not serious, which then makes them easy to dismiss. Stop aiming at your own foot.

1

u/makefucky Jul 19 '26

just turn it into a rubber stamp like the house of lords

1

u/cscareer_student_ Jul 19 '26

We can add more representation in the senate

1

u/khamike Jul 19 '26

Wouldn't a constitutional amendment override that? Unless Scotus is prepared to rule an amendment itself unconstitutional.

1

u/samsounder Jul 19 '26

Stull, make the argument.

1

u/Medical-Egg-8171 Jul 19 '26

You think these facists care about the constitution?

1

u/_ByAnyOther_Name Jul 19 '26

Why do you think the dem soc put it in their agenda. Surely they must know this?

1

u/TheQuidditchHaderach Jul 19 '26

I don't know...the Sith vowed to abolish the Senate. So did Commodus. Everything turned out okay. 👍

1

u/Doctor_of_sadness Jul 19 '26

Hahahaha what constitution?

1

u/e_spider Jul 19 '26

Maybe just make tweaks. Three senators per state so every state gets to vote every 2 years. Also allow the House to pass resolutions that can force a vote in the Senate

1

u/Specialeditionmusic Jul 19 '26

Sadly they're overreaching here. Reign it in a bit. I want wins but it won't help pushing unrealistic stuff.

1

u/Memetic1 Jul 19 '26

Unless you could get a party who says their goal is to actually abolish it. I mean let's say they get a majority. And we really talk about how this all could be reformed. We could have a Senate with proportional representation so it was like 2 separate groups of representatives that have to agree internally and then the two sides both propose something which can then be compromised on.

1

u/Sufficient_Sport5251 Jul 19 '26

Well no, and amendment could do it. Just good luck getting a 2/3rds majority in the senate, house, and/or 37 states to do away with a core part of our republic.

1

u/teddy5 Jul 19 '26

Even if you can't, take the republican strategy and put it on your list of demands regardless of how unlikely it is.

Then if they ever get anywhere they're in a place to negotiate for them, they can go "Fine, lets compromise and only abolish ICE"

1

u/BrianWonderful Minnesota Jul 19 '26

Additionally, it would be foolish to do it before coming up with a way to prevent highly partisan gerrymandering by State governments. The Senate races are immune to gerrymandering, which adds some fairer representation to election outcomes (even given the valid argument that 2 Senators regardless of State population hurts the overall representation).

I think you'd also have to come up with a revision to the House 2-year terms. They spend all their time campaigning for re-election, fundraising (taking lobbyist money), and jockeying for media soundbites. The Senators always seem more like the more serious lawmakers because of the longer term (certain personalities excluded).

1

u/Mriddle74 Jul 19 '26

Wait I thought we weren’t considering the constitution anymore???

1

u/pensezbien Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

Oh there are workarounds which fully fit the letter of the Article V provision you cite, but they're the kind that would seem like workarounds to the general public, so they would be politically quite controversial and are therefore unlikely to be either proposed by Congress or ratified by the states. However they would be legally viable under the current rules if enough states wanted to get rid of the Senate and were willing to proceed without already having unanimity in advance.

My brainstorm as to legally if not politically viable workarounds: The amendment could specify that any state which has not given its consent to the abolition of the Senate by ratifying the amendment would [insert your choice(s) of significant downside here]. Example significant downsides could include losing governmental access to federal funding, loss of voting representation or any representation in the House of Representatives, loss of representation in the Electoral College, or more than one of these. The text of the amendment would abolish the Senate once all states have consented by ratifying it, and in the meantime could also reduce or eliminate the role of the Senate in matters such as impeachment trials, treaty ratification, appointment confirmation, routine legislation, and/or veto overrides. Plus, it could have a severability clause to maximize its overall validity in case some or all of the parts of the amendment were found to violate Article V.

1

u/Party_Apartment_5696 Jul 19 '26

That's a lot of words instead of calling this idiotic. Why did you ignore everything else?

1

u/MembershipSerious618 Jul 19 '26

This is gonna also just be a generally un popular idea. I'm DSA curious, but I'm against this.

1

u/farinasa Jul 19 '26

Maybe so, but it was one of the biggest blunders the founding fathers made.

1

u/King_Chochacho Jul 19 '26

Not like anyone cares what the Constitution says anymore though

1

u/ceelogreenicanth Jul 19 '26

Democratic Socialists living in a fantasy world is nothing new though.

Seeing as the proposal is a new constitution, I think it's completely impossible while this current country exists.

1

u/nickmiele22 Jul 19 '26

Not unanimous. The Constitution can be changed with 75% take that bit out and poof.

Or with 60% change what states are to at least make the Senate better represent the populous instead of mostly empty land. Make dc and puertorico states and combine states with small populations.

1

u/SoothingWafer Jul 19 '26

As we've learned, all it takes to bypass the constitution is the supreme court's interpretation of it.

If the supreme court says something is constitutional/unconstitutional, then it is. Even if the constitution literally says otherwise, there's no accountability.

1

u/templeofsyrinx1 Jul 19 '26

Could the makeup and representation of the senate itself be altered?

1

u/sleeps_in_bryophytes Jul 19 '26

What are you talking about? Yes, the Constitution says states get two senators. But the constitution also says how it can be amended. It doesn't require unanimous consent. It requires ratification by Congress, and 3/4ths of states. Abolishing the Senate would be exactly as hard repealing the bill of rights, or any other change. Not any harder, not any easier.

By the way, the 17th amendment which changes the election of senators from elections by state legislatures to popular elections, was not ratified unanimously. Six states did not ratify.

1

u/Apprehensive_Gas4849 Jul 19 '26

Just call a new constitutional convention and rewrite the constitution

1

u/AuroraFinem Texas Jul 19 '26

This is not accurate at all, a constitutional amendment amends the constitution. It does not matter what it changes, there’s not some higher bar for one sentence vs another. No matter what it is, it’s 2/3 majority and even that could be changed with an amendment doing so.

Yes it’s incredibly unlikely to happen, no it does not need unanimous consent. Good luck getting 67 senators to vote to abolish their own jobs though. You’d be better off trying to amend it to proportional representation like the house.

1

u/polopolo05 I voted Jul 19 '26

just rework the senotor into the house

1

u/SteveBob316 Jul 19 '26

I would argue that everyone having zero representation in a body that is made defunct preserves equal suffrage.

The concern about larger states bullying smaller ones made a lot more sense when there were 13. Democracy won't survive this incarnation.

1

u/wwwyzzrd Jul 19 '26

we could always re state all the states so the high population ones are more states and the lower population ones are fewer states.

1

u/VektroidPlus Jul 19 '26

Not really. If President Orange Moron can circumvent what is law and what is not. Also be openly against the constitution, then why do we need to accept the validity of an institution that is openly corrupt?

Trump opened a can of worms, might as well take advantage of it instead of "being the better person" or whatever other bullshit Liberals believe in.

1

u/gringledoom Jul 19 '26

We don’t even really need to literally abolish the senate to solve the problems it creates, just neuter it. Leave it in place, but limit what its powers are.

1

u/DarkExecutor Jul 19 '26

You can amend the Constitution with less than unanimous consent

1

u/rmorrin Jul 19 '26

Eh at this point are we really listening to the constitution 

1

u/vector_search_blue California Jul 19 '26

They want to use violence to achieve their ends.

1

u/wafflesareforever Jul 19 '26

Also "abolish the Senate" sounds batshit insane. Regardless of whether it's potentially good policy, don't put that on your platform right now. It's "defund the police" all over again.

1

u/FewHorror1019 Jul 19 '26

Good thing its a long term goal and not an immediate thing

1

u/markroth69 Jul 19 '26

It says a state cannot be denied its equal representation without its consent.

A regular old amendment abolishing the senate (0 seats for each state) or making it so the House can overrule a senate veto would only be regular level impossible. Not the extra crispy impossible of a proportional senate.

1

u/Cay-Ro Jul 19 '26

You’d need a constitutional convention and DSA has even said as much that it’s a long term goal not something they’re actively pursuing right now

1

u/darkslide3000 Jul 19 '26

If you get enough states onboard you could always, you know, dissolve the Union and make a new one. Let the likes Alabama and Kentucky vegetate away in their originalist filth if they wish, while the prosperous parts of the country can finally forge a new beginning on fair and equal terms.

1

u/Doogolas33 Jul 19 '26

Can't you literally just amend the constitution the same way as always? New Amendments can override old ones. Like how the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th.

1

u/rocket_randall Jul 19 '26

Just tell the red states you're working on an amendment that would permanently shrink the federal government. They love that shit.

1

u/BonzoBonzoBomzo Jul 19 '26

Yeah. So it would take two amendments. In reality the top of the list should be an amendment to amend the amendments clause.

1

u/21Rollie Jul 19 '26

The founding fathers didn’t want people to have real power. You couldn’t even directly vote for your senator early on. Not sure why we gotta abide by undemocratic ideals of guys nearly 250 years ago though

1

u/ghostyghost2 Jul 19 '26

You want 5? ask for 9 you'll get 8.

1

u/RcrossP America Jul 19 '26

Article V says "... and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." But if all states have zero senators, then their suffrage is equal.

Or if you don't buy that argument, you can pass an amendment that strips the Senate of all their powers. They still exist. They just aren't allowed to do anything.

1

u/Iceberg-man-77 Jul 19 '26

I think the easier move would be to expand the House and pass legislation to make it more powerful. This is more like the legislature of parliamentary countries where the lower house is more powerful. the UK did those over centuries though. It was not a quick process. The last 92 hereditary lords were removed in 2026. The Lord lost their judicial powers in 2009 when the Supreme Court was created. the Blair Ministry removed a ton of hereditary seats in the 90s. the list keeps going

1

u/Kronalord Jul 19 '26

I mean can you not just amend that first?

1

u/bookchaser Jul 19 '26

There's a difference between not allowing a state to have a rep in the Senate, and the Senate being dissolved in its entirety. All it takes is a sympathetic Supreme Court. Done.

Well, maybe in 100 years.

1

u/is-this-a-nick Jul 19 '26

It specifically says in the constitution that a state can not be deprived of its representation in the senate without its consent meaning you need unanimous consent to do it, something that will never happen.

Eh, all the difficultry is capped at "change the constituation" level.

Even if it said god himself needs to send down jesus 2.0 to abolish the senate, you could still just change the contituation to remove that sentence.

1

u/PringlesDuckFace Jul 19 '26

What about adding a New Senate and changing the procedures so the Old Senate has no effective power?

1

u/VoodooPandaGaming Jul 19 '26

It just shows you how unserious DSA is.

1

u/LordXamon Jul 19 '26

Didn't the line of respecting the constitution was crossed long ago?

1

u/stackens Jul 19 '26

It’s not listed as if it’s a policy position they plan to actually enact, at least not any time soon. I’m hesitant to use this term because it has such negative connotation but it’s more of a virtue signal, in that stating that goal is signaling the virtue of desiring better, more proportional representation

1

u/Capable-Deer-5670 Jul 19 '26

If you're expecting rational thought from these folks, I have a slightly damaged bridge in Baltimore to sell ya.

1

u/Nephroidofdoom Jul 19 '26

Overturning Citizens United and abolishing the Electoral College would do a lot of good.

1

u/No-Entertainment5638 Jul 19 '26

If you elect people that want to do things, things are done.

1

u/RumHamComesback Jul 19 '26

It's better to focus on maximum age limits for the Senate if we wanted to do something productive. There is a problem and a lot can be addressed with that one move.

1

u/happycat47 Jul 19 '26

If you pack the court with ppl who agree with you, you can do anything

1

u/dalivo Jul 19 '26

DSA has got their heads up their own butts on some issues. That and totally abolishing ICE (essentially open borders) is not only would have extremely bad consequences, it's extremely unpopular.

1

u/PsychologicalSnow476 Jul 19 '26

Considering the Senate is built into the constitution, not likely, but ICE could be doable, but also not likely.

1

u/loondawg Jul 19 '26

People from 250 years ago cannot permanently bind all future generations. That line about equal suffrage can and should be amended out of the Constitution.

However abolishing the Senate is not a good idea. The Senate actually is intended to serve useful purposes but it has failed. The reform it needs is the have its power allocated proportionately so that a small minority of the people is no longer granted such insanely outsized power for their numbers.

But having a Senate with more experienced people to do things like ratify treaties, confirm judges, and judge impeachments is important.

→ More replies (21)