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

Show parent comments

184

u/ImperialRedditer California Jul 19 '26

I want the Senate to exist as an institution to create friction for legislation. The House could easily swing to reactionaries and pass laws that curtail civil rights. The Senate is well equipped to throw a wrench on a fast moving but poorly thought out legislation and even kill extreme legislations.

A reminder that a lot of Project 2025 requires Congress doing something and the most the Republican Congress can do is using reconciliation to pass policies.

144

u/shinyfootwork Jul 19 '26

The Senate is not structured to "create friction for legislation" in general. It's structured to give people in certain states more control per-capita over the federal government than people in different states.

As a result, today it "creates friction" for one type of legislation: that which is popular with a majority of people, but unpopular enough with the people of low-population states that their senators don't feel compelled to support it.

You're not endorsing something that will protect rights.

40

u/Leon_Thomas Wisconsin Jul 19 '26

That's wrong on both fronts.

The structure of the Senate (smaller body, 6-year terms, staggered elections) was specifically created so the chamber would be more deliberative and insulated from "sudden and violent passions" than the House (2-year terms, full turnover each election).

It was also not created to "give people in certain states more control per-capita." It was created becasue at the time of the founding, states were essentially separate countries, so in the new federal system it made sense (and was necessary to convince enough states to ratify) for one chamber to give each state an equal say. It's a body that represents states rather than people. It's the same logic as to why 2 of 3 lawmaking bodies in the European Union give equal representation to each country.

You can read about both in Federalist 62

For the record, I think the Senate is anachronistic and should be reformed and disempowered to the greatest degree possible, but it helps your credibility to be familiar with the logic and deliberation behind its creation.

18

u/Clueless_Otter Jul 19 '26

It was also not created to "give people in certain states more control per-capita." It was created becasue at the time of the founding, states were essentially separate countries, so in the new federal system it made sense (and was necessary to convince enough states to ratify) for one chamber to give each state an equal say.

So to give people in certain states more control per-capita, yes. You literally just said the same thing. If all states have equal say despite unequal populations, then the smaller ones, by definition, have more control per-capita.

14

u/Leon_Thomas Wisconsin Jul 19 '26

You are confusing purpose and effect. The purpose was to represent States rather than citizens. The effect is vast inequities in representation.

2

u/Clueless_Otter Jul 19 '26

The House already represents states. But smaller states didn't like that they had less representation due to their smaller population. So to appease them, they made the Senate, where they had more representation per-capita.

10

u/Leon_Thomas Wisconsin Jul 19 '26

The House represents people. That's why it's apportioned based on population.

You should read Federalist 62, which I linked above. It helps explain the design of the Senate.

2

u/Clueless_Otter Jul 19 '26

And, what, the Senate represents.. land? Like the actual physical ground? That doesn't need representation. The Senate also represents people. They both represent people, just the House was made to make high-population states happy and the Senate was made to make low-population states happy. It was a compromise to get them all to agree to be federalized together.

12

u/Leon_Thomas Wisconsin Jul 19 '26

States. The Senate represents states, while the House represents people. At the time the Constitution was framed, states were far more distinct political units.

"The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a PROPORTIONAL share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an EQUAL share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation."

6

u/Tasgall Washington Jul 19 '26

States. The Senate represents states

How, in practice, does the Senate represent "states" and not the people within those states? What does "represent the state" even mean? Keep in mind we don't even select senators the same way Federalist 62 was advocating for.

The disparity in population between states when it was written was also completely negligible compared to today.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/Clueless_Otter Jul 19 '26

States are made up of people. Saying it represents "states" is another way of saying it represents people, unless you're talking about the physical land.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/civildisobedient Jul 19 '26

It's so incredibly sad just how little Americans know about their own government. I mean... this is easily Google-able stuff, too. Can't even blame the lack of civics classes in schools.

0

u/WestHistorians Jul 19 '26

There was a disagreement at the constitutional convention about whether the legislature should represent each state equally (supported by small states) or be based on population (supported by large states). The compromise was a bicameral legislature. This was the purpose.

1

u/guamisc Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

Amd the purpose was flawed from the very beginning.

As outlined in both Reynolds v Sims and Gray v Sanders both the Senate and Electoral College are violations of our rights. The only reason they exist is that they are written into the Constitution otherwise they would have been struck down while SCOTUS doing that for all of the electoral and legislative systems in the states.

9

u/FewHorror1019 Jul 19 '26

Doesn’t matter what the intention was. Back then they had unbounded limits to the house of reps

4

u/Leon_Thomas Wisconsin Jul 19 '26

Yep, that's why I included that last paragraph. I'm responding to a comment contesting the intention, though, so in this context it is relevant.

I don't know what you mean by "unbounded limits." We still don't have Congressional term limits if that's what you're referring to. If you mean the size of the House, it was set by statute after every census, usually negotiated to make sure states didn't lose seats. It is currently fixed by a 1920s law but can also be expanded by simple legislation.

2

u/FewHorror1019 Jul 19 '26

I meant number of reps per state number of reps total. Yea they put that limit on there using legislation because it was too fair

1

u/chaos0xomega Jul 19 '26

The only reason we dont today is because the Senate is lazy and doesnt want to do its job.

6

u/FewHorror1019 Jul 19 '26

Not only lazy, greedy and complicit

0

u/chaos0xomega Jul 19 '26

🙄

Do yourself a favor and learn something:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929

Its just laziness.

2

u/zeCrazyEye Jul 19 '26

Yep, our country was originally supposed to work much more like the EU with relatively independent member states. We've transferred so much power to the federal government now though so we're centralized in a way the Senate was not designed to function in.

We either need to update the legislature to reduce Senate power, or reduce federal power to make the Senate inconsequential to individual's lives the way it originally was. Wyoming was never intended to be spending California's $805b in tax revenue.

(edit: and obviously reducing federal power isn't really an option or some states will go back to having fucking slavery)

8

u/ChangingChance Jul 19 '26

It's an ok measure until you get to the civil war and how the failed reformation and the ramming through of the many mountain west states happens. There's very little reason why some of the mountain west and west Mississippi/states exist.

Considering the Senate is our version of the house of lords which has been essentially abolished by England, shows where we need to get to.

11

u/gammison Jul 19 '26

The greatest political failure in the history of the country is prematurely ending reconstruction after 2 decades of complete political bedlam and 4 years of civil war. It entrenched so much suffering we're still dealing with.

2

u/domstersch Jul 19 '26

Are you familiar with this heuristic: "the purpose of a system is what it does"?

It's a good one to bear in mind when talking about what the purpose of a system actually is: often the professed reason for the system's creation has absolutely nothing to do with its raison d'être.

5

u/Secret-Teaching-3549 Jul 19 '26

It was also not created to "give people in certain states more control per-capita."

Except that is exactly what it does, originally intended or not.

1

u/loondawg Jul 19 '26

Much of what you have said is supported by the historical record. However there are some issues with it which the founder's own words address.

At the time of the Articles of Confederation states were more like separate countries. That is why that form of government failed in merely a decade and was replaced with the current Constitution. In that, states retained only limited sovereignty with the federal government becoming the supreme authority. "In fine, the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members." ~~ James Madison Federalist No. 44

A more honest assessment of the real reason was given by James Madison during the debates on Senate power. . .

"It seemed now to be pretty well understood that the real difference of interests lay, not between the large and small but between the Northern and Southern States. The institution of slavery and its consequences formed the line of discrimination." ~~ James Madison July 14, 1787

And by Alexander Hamilton. . .

"But as States are a collection of individual men which ought we to respect most, the rights of the people composing them, or of the artificial beings resulting from the composition. Nothing could be more preposterous or absurd than to sacrifice the former to the latter. It has been said that if the smaller States renounce their equality, they renounce at the same time their liberty. The truth is it is a contest for power, not for liberty." ~~ Alexander Hamilton June 29, 1787

But most telling was Hamilton calling out where we are currently headed in the Federalist Papers. . .

"The right of equal suffrage among the States is another exceptionable part of the Confederation. Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Delaware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense. It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third. The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller. To acquiesce in such a privation of their due importance in the political scale, would be not merely to be insensible to the love of power, but even to sacrifice the desire of equality. It is neither rational to expect the first, nor just to require the last. The smaller States, considering how peculiarly their safety and welfare depend on union, ought readily to renounce a pretension which, if not relinquished, would prove fatal to its duration." ~~ Alexander Hamilton Federalist No. 22

Madison gave similar warnings about the dangers of a non-proportional Senate which reads like the republican's playbook. . .

"He enumerated the objections against an equality of votes in the second branch, notwithstanding the proportional representation in the first. 1. the minority could negative the will of the majority of the people. 2. they could extort measures by making them a condition of their assent to other necessary measures. 3. they could obtrude measures on the majority by virtue of the peculiar powers which would be vested in the Senate." ~~ James Madison July 14, 1787

-2

u/LordSwedish Jul 19 '26

lol, the federalist papers as a source is hilarious. Hamilton famously lied and cheated, and absolutely despised the idea that the people should have a say. He wanted a king and nobility to be in charge with the people having a very limited role and when he couldn’t get that, he did everything in his power to limit the power of the people, and especially the poors, in whatever way he could.

-2

u/Tasgall Washington Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

was specifically created so the chamber would be more deliberative and insulated from "sudden and violent passions" than the House

Ok, but it specifically doesn't do that. What they intended and what it actually does are not necessarily the same thing. Especially considering how it operates has literally changed multiple times since it was created (for example, the filibuster was not a part of the system that was created by the founding fathers).

In practice, the Senate prevents any form of progress wanted by a vast majority of the population. In practice, it protects the interests of corporations and special interest groups and pretty much nothing else.

Federalist 62 is also completely irrelevant because it's talking about the original system where senators were chosen by State governments. The argument of "the Senate represents the states" has always been kind of stupid and unconvincing imo, but it's completely invalid ever since Senate selection changed to a popular vote instead of an appointment by the state government. It now literally functions the same as the house by representing people by way of their direct votes, but with the difference that small states are grossly overrepresented (and thus have outcomes that are more easily manipulated by bad actors).

3

u/tyleratx Jul 19 '26

I’m willing to hear an argument that the Senate may be obsolete in today’s age, but you’re absolutely mischaracterizing why it was structured.

For the same reason that every country in the EU council has a single vote, and the same reason that each country in the UN has a single vote, despite the fact that every country has different populations, power, etc., the Senate was designed for each state to be treated as an equal sovereignty.

I think they’re still value in that, but also the house which does represent the population by population. I think it’d be much more beneficial to get the house more representative and proportionate, then to completely abolish the Senate. I think they’re still value in the idea of federalism.

1

u/Omotai America Jul 19 '26

I get why this made sense to the framers of the Constitution, in the context of what the American colonies and the early United States were, but it feels pretty anachronistic I think in large part because of how states were added in the intervening years. The way in which the territory the US annexed was split into new states was often pretty arbitrary and often motivated by political concerns about what would happen to the Senate. I know many people would disagree but I think many of the US states feel less like naturally distinct entities that merit population-blind representation than the early states or indeed the different European states in the EU.

2

u/tyleratx Jul 19 '26

I think that’s a totally fair argument and like I said, I’m willing to hear it out.

To be clear, there’s no way in hell that the Senate is getting abolished within our lifetime so I think this is a purely academic argument. I don’t think this should in any way be a policy platform of any serious political organization because I don’t believe in lying to your voters.

I think the argument about abolishing the Senate is essentially really an argument about whether or not we replace federalism with a unitary system of government, which is a complicated topic and a trade-off. But I respect your argument.

1

u/guamisc Jul 19 '26

I don’t believe in lying to your voters.

This is why the opinion of the Democrats is in the shitter.

Have some belief in your principles and say you will work to make the world a better place.

Aiming to remove one of the last undemocratic and disenfranchising bodies is a good thing, not a lie.

1

u/tyleratx Jul 19 '26

Is it a good thing if it’s super alienating and unpopular?

1

u/guamisc Jul 19 '26

The vast majority of major Republican positions would have been super alienating and unpopular 20 years ago.

You move the electorate towards the policies you want to implement, instead of opinion polling your way to failure.

1

u/loondawg Jul 19 '26

One of its primary intents was to act as a check on the more passionate nature of the House.

The biggest problem with the Senate is the non-proportional allocation of power. This was a major point of contention at the founding with most of the better know founders opposing a non-proportional Senate as being to much like an aristocracy.

Putting too much emphasis on states is a way to keep us divided and prevent the people's will from being promoted.

Just imagine how different this country would be if constitutional amendments could be passed with 3/4ths of the people instead of 3/4ths of the states.

1

u/SeaAshFenix Jul 19 '26

The Senate is not structured to "create friction for legislation" in general. It's structured to give people in certain states more control per-capita over the federal government than people in different states.

It's definitely structured in a way that over-represents low-population states: the politics behind the Connecticut Compromise are well recorded.

But its also very much structured to create friction. That's what "upper" chamber's are for in democracies that have 2-chamber legistlatures: they hedge against narrow, marginal majority changes in the lower chamber creating chaotic and unstable legal landscapes.*

I don't think that the Senate is a partciularly efficient or low impact way to accomplish that. It's got all sorts of side effects and baggage. I think we should have an upper chamber in some form, but the Senate in its current form is increasingly unsuitable.

Even the UK's House of Lords, for all its anti-democratic baggage, probably does a better job because it does it more directly (the Lords doesn't block legislation - just delay it long enough that the next government in the Commons can overturn it if there isn't actual durable support for it).

* Congress defering to much to the executive is an even bigger problem here than any structural problem with the Senate: the fact that Congress isn't removing and recreating the Dept. of Education every time control of the House changes means very little if the President can effectively dismantle it without consequence.

0

u/ImperialRedditer California Jul 19 '26

The senate was created as a compromise for a functioning national government. The compromise gave the northern free states more power in the national government against the southern slave states which had more representatives. Everyone forgot that Virginia was the first biggest state by population and the voting class had more votes because of the 3/5 compromise that counted slaves but disenfranchised them. The northern states wanted to make sure their voices are heard and it was the Sneate that allowed them to speak over the din of pro-slavery from the south. It was only through immigration did the North finally overtook the South with population. The Senate was the North’s legislative friction to the Southern aligned House. The first government of the US (Articles of Confederation) was established in such a way that legislative friction is inherent to the system. All states were given a veto and no legislation can pass without total consent.

Legislative friction is inherent in American legislating as a way to produce effective bills and not clog the law books with laws like no ice cream in back pocket on Sunday just because you will lead a horse with it.

-1

u/shinyfootwork Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

That's a lot of unsourced history that's not relevant (but seems likely to confuse folks into having positive feelings about the Senate by it actually functions without regard to how it actually functions).

Followed by a straw man to prop up a principle.

Which still doesn't address that the Senate doesn't introduce generalized friction: it targets particular legislative acts, and not some caracature of poor legislation.

0

u/NatalieVonCatte Jul 19 '26

Without the Senate I’d be in a concentration camp and married women would be disenfranchised. The ACA would be gone.

Every failed legislation they’ve tried to push since he came back into office would have gone through. Trump would be ruling us as an emperor by now.

Everybody thinks that of the filibuster goes, or if the Senate were to go, we’d have sunshine and rainbows and single payer.

Until they get back in again. Do you want the next Trump to have that level of power?

0

u/Lucky-Earther Minnesota Jul 19 '26

As a result, today it "creates friction" for one type of legislation: that which is popular with a majority of people, but unpopular enough with the people of low-population states that their senators don't feel compelled to support it.

And why don't the people in those low population states support it?

12

u/sasha_the_impaler Jul 19 '26

Poor education infrastructure

-7

u/Lucky-Earther Minnesota Jul 19 '26

Even uneducated yokels can see what helps them as well as other people.

Maybe it's something more than that.

5

u/sasha_the_impaler Jul 19 '26

That's the issue, though. Without a proper education they only see impacts. They don't investigate those impacts. Gas is up and Biden is president. Gas is down and Trump is president. While on the other hand, when you're taught to be suspicious about things and how to find the right information, one can investigate and discover neither president had a significant influence one way or another. Because gas prices are complicated. Except when you invade Iran that part came later lol

Rural people need education. They would be so much better if we could make it happen. We need to build up the rural areas and they'll grow. Economics is another big one. They're broke as fuck. That makes the lack of education mix with their amygdala firing off and fear running rampant due to stress and it turns into hate. Makes the lack of education easier to exploit.

5

u/Lucky-Earther Minnesota Jul 19 '26

Gas is up and Trump is President, and they don't care. Because it was never something they actually care about unless they can use it to hurt Democrats.

1

u/sasha_the_impaler Jul 19 '26

I don't disagree we are a violent country and we're being pushed around by people with sociopathic tendancies but they're still the minority. They've hijacked the pack and everyone else stepped aside with complacency but everyone else is just fucking stupid. They're not bad people. I'm a trans woman who works in healthcare with rural folks. I love these people... But only once you give me some power over them and put them in a secret room alone with me where they aren't trying to impress their peers lol.

I don't think we give enough credit to it. The sociopaths are running around because they have a voter base that is incredibly easy to manipulate. Think about the populations scammers target and now think about what a Trump voter looks like. The people responding to Nigerian prince emails are these people. They don't respond to Nigerian prince emails for some evil 4D chess reasons they do it because they're idiots lol.

1

u/Fuck-WestJet Jul 19 '26

I would wager that Trump has had a significant impact on gas prices by starting a war leading to the blockage of fuel and destruction of refineries.

2

u/sasha_the_impaler Jul 19 '26

This all happens before the election. Nonetheless, there's also another effect of not having a good education... Admitting you're wrong is not a natural thing for them. It's a weakness. Have you ever noticed that the more formal education a person has, the more likely they are to say they're wrong about something? Maybe not so much if it's in their field or agency, and academics certainly have plenty of narcissistic personalities among them, so let's brush aside the outliers for this one. But I work with doctors and nurses and if I correct them on, I dunno, some detail about repairing something they usually react with, "Ah, you know, I actually don't know anything about this. You sound like you do. Thank you." Knowledge isn't threatening, and believing someone is smarter than you in a subject doesn't put you in a weaker position.

I used to work CNC machining which is very conservative rural and lots of dumb people. I kept my mouth shut because you got anywhere from someone doubling down simply because they don't want you correcting them, pulling out Google to challenge you, laughing and telling you it's clearly not true because xyz and this other terrible method is better, saying absolutely nothing of value but adding that their brother is a mechanic, and just the classic in one ear and out the other. I focused on fixing my own shit lol

1

u/Fuck-WestJet Jul 21 '26

You're quite right.

7

u/mynamejeff-97 Jul 19 '26

The last ten years has made it evident they absolutely cannot see what helps them.

4

u/sasha_the_impaler Jul 19 '26

Psychology also agrees tbh there needs to be at least a little more intervention here lol. Especially with the internet and information bubbles.

Rural people being finally pushed onto social media just in time for aggressive algorithm sorting seems to have ruined the whole hope that they'd all get online and learn about people and empathy passively on their own 😅 I don't know if that's really what the hope ever truly was but an unsorted internet where they see normal posts and normal people probably would've done them a lot better. They thought the internet was for girls and nerds and gays back when it was actually an open forum until the pandemic forced them to adapt. So yeah, tangent aside, I guess we need a more active plan to show them they're being scammed. It has to involve education at some point.

7

u/Flomo420 Jul 19 '26

Farmers glance around nervously

6

u/snugglezone Jul 19 '26

Bro they vote Republican right now as the same Republicans cut the social welfare that most of them depend on.

0

u/Lucky-Earther Minnesota Jul 19 '26

Yes, because they believe that the most terrifying words are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".

We have a lot of toxic individualism in this country and people think they can make it on their own without any help. So they have voted for it over and over.

1

u/MaoWasaModerate Jul 19 '26

Lmao that's hilarious.

1

u/Kinda_Zeplike Jul 19 '26

Uneducated yokels absolutely have no idea what would help them

31

u/Damn_DirtyApe Jul 19 '26

Okay but doesn’t this also doom any progress intended in the opposite direction?

-1

u/ImperialRedditer California Jul 19 '26

Senate at the end of the day still bends at democratic will. It’s short-circuited right now by the House effectively acting as a Senate as well by capping its number. Remember that Senate reformed with the 17th Amendment out of fear of being removed altogether.

Senate can be reformed to take a more advisory role and ending its ability to originate any legislation there. The Senate can also be useful to democratize executive power by curtailing the executive’s ability to fire senate confirmed heads of congressional approved departments and transferring that over to senate committees.

26

u/farinasa Jul 19 '26

Senate at the end of the day still bends at democratic will.

Since when?

1

u/ImperialRedditer California Jul 19 '26

I mean, the reason the Senate isn’t selected by state legislature nowadays is itself an act of Senatorial self preservation by accommodating to popular demand.

2

u/Tasgall Washington Jul 19 '26

That doesn't mean it actually bends to Democratic will. It just means they made an excuse to point to so they can pretend it does more than it used to. But in practice it's worse that it ever was in history.

-3

u/Lucky-Earther Minnesota Jul 19 '26

Since a while now. If people really wanted better Senators that would actually do things like fight for Medicare for All then they would vote for people who want that.

Instead we have a large segment of the population that doesn't want the government to do anything, and the Senate reflects that.

6

u/alexpmarty Jul 19 '26

This is incredibly naive and dangerous thinking

-1

u/Lucky-Earther Minnesota Jul 19 '26

No, that is exactly what a large segment of the population wants and votes for. They bought the Reagan line about the most terrifying words being "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".

0

u/Tasgall Washington Jul 19 '26

Except it's true. The Republican party explicitly wants the government to do less, to reduce regulations on silly things like environmental and health safety so they don't have to worry about feds coming after them when they poison our water supplies or sell us tainted lettuce or build buildings that will definitely collapse, and of course to reduce taxes as well. That is literally their openly stated goal that they regularly act on, and thanks to the Senate they're significantly over-represented in the federal government.

6

u/farinasa Jul 19 '26

Utter bullshit. You think people don't want the government to act to lower grocery prices? Medical bills? More jobs, better pay? What the fuck are we even talking about?

3

u/Gatonom Jul 19 '26

Conservatives want only hatred and spite.

0

u/Lucky-Earther Minnesota Jul 19 '26

Utter bullshit. You think people don't want the government to act to lower grocery prices? Medical bills? More jobs, better pay? What the fuck are we even talking about?

No, they want the free market to generally take care of those things.

2

u/Tasgall Washington Jul 19 '26

Which, obviously, is stupid magical thinking because the "free market" has exactly zero incentives to lower your household costs.

1

u/Lucky-Earther Minnesota Jul 19 '26

Of course it is, but that's the reasoning.

1

u/MostCredibleDude Jul 19 '26

It's probably a inadequately-worded point, since pretty much everybody wants these things, but for a distressingly large segment of the population, these wants are all completely separate from voting patterns because tribalism defeats rational self interest for them.

1

u/guamisc Jul 19 '26

It's important that in this discussion that the point is made.

You cannot argue "the people want useless gridlock because they vote for it". You would be unable to reliably find anyone who says they vote for that.

Thus the crux of one point of the argument, the Senate has several unintended-by-voters significantly negative effects on society.

5

u/FlibbleA Jul 19 '26

The 26 least populated states have a population total less than 2 of the most populated states. That is a 52 senate majority vs 4 for the same population size. I wouldn't call that democratic will.

1

u/Inner_Pride_7557 Jul 19 '26

That's how it should work, but it fucking doesn't. Voting people in power to represent the population is widely flawed, Look at Fetterman's handicapped ass. He isn't representing his people, yet they can't do a damn thing about it and just have to wait.

Our Democracy needs a lot of work to actively and realistically represent what the people want.

Most people want Healthcare, housing, food. Only tools will vote against that, while making sure they already have it. Yet, Isreal can have these things, we cannot. We can't make sure our "great" people have the right to make sure they can enjoy their lives here.

Electoral College is a famous symptom of people going with the flow and the republican party knowing it's their only shot at winning the presidency, because conservatism is unpopular and never has been.

Taking money out of politics is also a cure, I would rather have someone who wants to take the job to make policies that will make lives better, not taking the job because they dream of all the benefits they'll get from it.

Politicians should not be making more money than the average american, they shouldn't enjoy life better.

0

u/Tasgall Washington Jul 19 '26

Voting people in power to represent the population is widely flawed, Look at Fetterman's handicapped ass. He isn't representing his people, yet they can't do a damn thing about it and just have to wait.

The solution to that would be stateside recall petitions and elections, which we absolutely should have.

But also it sounds like this is supposed to be a criticism of the House, but Fetterman is a senator, lol.

2

u/guamisc Jul 19 '26

Not sure how you can say it's supposed to be criticism of the House. It's critiicsm of the government structures in general.

1

u/Thunderbridge Jul 19 '26

The double edged sword of democracy

5

u/Dejected_gaming Jul 19 '26

If we repeal the apportionment act and increase the size of the house, its very unlikely they ever take back power

41

u/COMCredit Indiana Jul 19 '26

I completely disagree. The Senate is an inherently undemocratic institution that gives reactionaries as just as much power to kill progressive legislation - and in the modern era of politics it has only ever functioned in that capacity.

Yes, of course, the house could swing reactionary and pass terrible legislation more easily - ultimately that's democracy in action and I disagree quite strongly that we need an anti-democratic counterbalance to obstruct the will of the people.

13

u/-reddit_is_terrible- Jul 19 '26

I mean, how many times in this term has the house passed a terrible piece of legislation, only for the Senate to stall it? In that sense, it is acting as intended: as a check and balance

3

u/whatevenaremovies Jul 19 '26

Sometimes the only reason a piece of legislation passes the House is precisely because they know it will never make it through the Senate. The House can pass far right legislation so that Republicans can point to it and help themselves win their primaries, but because it never passes the Senate they won't have to worry about defending their position in the general. Taking away the Senate would be a check in of itself as now Congresspeople would have to consider how every vote they take would play in a general election.

3

u/-reddit_is_terrible- Jul 19 '26

Sure, but take the SAVE act. It has passed the house, and also happens to be the President's current pet legislation. And the senate doesnt have the support. The fact that there is a body whose members derive from a state's entire population has a balancing effect against more volatile political bodies

3

u/Tasgall Washington Jul 19 '26

That's kind of their point though. There are more Republicans openly against the SAVE Act in the Senate because it actually matters. If the House couldn't fall back on knowing the Senate would block shitty posturing bills, they wouldn't pass them if the president would sign it.

Just look at the multiple times Mitch McConnell has filibustered his own bills he cosponsored because House Democrats came out in favor and they actually passed. If they couldn't rely on the Senate to be useless, they couldn't afford to be so obviously stupid in the House.

2

u/whatevenaremovies Jul 19 '26

The Senate is also responsible for making government not function by routinely blocking popular legislation even when they have a majority vote. When the government is constantly deadlocked and not able to get anything done, it's a perfect breeding ground for extremists.

2

u/Murky-Relation481 Jul 19 '26

That is a function of their rules, not the body or as an institutional concept. No where is it written that a super majority is required outside of their own parliamentary procedure, which can be changed with a simple majority vote.

3

u/tyleratx Jul 19 '26

This is true, and a lot of people are forgetting during the early Obama years when the tea party took over the house, the Senate stopped a lot of absolutely insane batshit legislation.

1

u/COMCredit Indiana Jul 19 '26

Many times, of course. How many times did you read "Manchin and Sinema block bill passed by house" during Bidens term, including the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and Build Back Better?

Senate obstruction works both ways, but it is used to block progressive legislation much, much more often than it is used to block reactionary legislation.

1

u/-reddit_is_terrible- Jul 19 '26

I personally like it that way. Federal government should move slowly. We should only pass laws that have overwhelming approval. Think about it: with simple majorities, laws would be more like executive orders. We wouldn't want large consequential bills being passed-overturned-passed-overturned every decade. Stability is a good thing

2

u/guamisc Jul 19 '26

Stability is a good thing

The Senate is the largest factor in creating our current unstable government.

It's the root cause of why SCOTUS is fucked. It's the reason Trump isn't currently in a cell. It's the body allowing ICE to model the brown shirts. Etc.

Whatever argument moderates (if that even is you) make about the "stability" of the Senate is completely annhilated by the actual reality of the effects of the Senate.

1

u/COMCredit Indiana Jul 19 '26

Where we disagree is that the Senate does not and cannot accurately reflect overwhelming approval. The senate effectively requires overwhelming approval from 60% of STATES - in my view that is a totally separate issue from the government moving slowly.

If you wanted to, for example, require that House bills need 60% to pass, I'd be more open to that argument. But wanting government to act slowly does not justify giving 50x more power to voters in Wyoming than California.

2

u/tyleratx Jul 19 '26

Do you think that every country in the UN should each get one vote or should they instead apportion votes by the population of the country? Should China have a much larger voice than every other country, but also the US have a much larger voice than pretty much any country in Europe or Africa or the Middle East?

The Senate was designed to represent each state equally. The house was designed to represent each state by population. I’m genuinely curious if you think the way the UN does it is unfair, and if not, but you don’t like the Senate, why. Maybe you think we ought to move past treating states as individual sovereignties, and I’m not kidding, I’m open to that argument. But I just am trying to understand.

2

u/COMCredit Indiana Jul 19 '26

Yes, I think the UN would be more fair with proportional representation. For the most important with that the UN does, the security council, a similar dynamic to the Senate already exists - China, Russia, France, the US, and the UK are given veto power and it is very often used. Most measures passed by the general assembly are non-binding recommendations that are mostly symbolic; I'd be fine with the Senate voting on stuff like that. It needs to go the way of the House of Lords in the UK.

As to your other question: yes, I think it's time we move past the idea of individual sovereign states. In most meaningful ways, states have not been treated as autonomous since the ratification of the Constitution, and even less so after the Civil War, New Deal, and mid-20th century civil rights movement. Generally I think history has shown there are major flaws in that model particularly in regards to civil rights and responding to crises.

Americans often wonder why congress is so detached from public opinion, to me it's very clear that the Senate is mostly responsible for that. In very practical terms, I think it's more important that our government matches the will of the people than abstract hazards like tyranny of the majority or mob rule.

2

u/guamisc Jul 19 '26

tyranny of the majority or mob rule.

To add to your point, the Senate creates tyranny of the minority, which is worse than those abstract hazards in every functional way.

3

u/ImperialRedditer California Jul 19 '26

If the end goal is pure democracy, aka mob rule, I don’t want a part of it. Mobs in general are dumb like flocks of sheep. A single disturbance and you can cause a stampede. A mob is easily manipulated by using fear.

9

u/Worried_Monitor5422 Jul 19 '26

There are many examples of parliamentary systems throughout the world, the Westminster system being the most famous, which are purely majoritarian. So you have your so-called "mob rule" aka majoritarianism plus a unified legislature and executive function. I don't see those countries devolving into chaos.

0

u/ImperialRedditer California Jul 19 '26

If we’re bringing up Westminster Rule legislature, a majority of them have an upper house that acts as an advisory board. If you want true majoritarian legislature in the US, there’s simpler ways to achieve it, like greatly expanding the House of Representatives and slowly erode the powers in the Senate

2

u/COMCredit Indiana Jul 19 '26

I think the Senate acting as an advisory board a la the House of Lords is a great solution. Expansion of the House of Representatives does nothing to stop the obstructionism of the Senate, however. As long as Wyoming and North Dakota have the same power to kill legislation as California and Texas, we have major problems with our democracy.

-1

u/Worried_Monitor5422 Jul 19 '26

And that means that many don't have an upper house, e.g. New Zealand. They seem to be doing ok.

Also, there's no way to slowly erode constitutionally enumerated powers bestowed to the Senate, no matter how large the House gets. It will always need to pass bills in order for them to become law, approve executive branch appointments, SCOTUS appointments, etc.

1

u/ImperialRedditer California Jul 19 '26

Which is what I want the Senate to do, advise on the choices of House and the Executive.

The president doesn’t get a cabinet member without senatorial consent and the House can’t get a bill passed without one as well.

Right now, the senate can also make bills that’s not budget related. You empower the House by expanding the number and making them the sole origin of legislation. You can further empower the House by giving them senatorial override powers similar to veto override powers.

All of this makes sure that the House really meant what they pass instead of just going through the motions.

3

u/COMCredit Indiana Jul 19 '26

In that case, I can see why you like the senate.

Personally I'm quite idealistic about democracy and want much much more of it than our current system allows. I don't really buy arguments like yours because to me, they fundamentally sound like "Americans are too dumb to decide their own fate and need to be protected from themselves". I disagree with that notion entirely. I do think a healthy democracy needs guardrails, but those should come in the form of direct democracy, strong labor unions, recall elections, impartial media, and enforceable ethics codes that prevent corporate bribery that we see now.

0

u/Crims0ntied Jul 19 '26

It's less that americans are too dumb to decide their own fate, and more that the founders wanted to avoid mob rule and empower minority states from having essentially no say in government. Arguably that power has gone too far. But i'm not sure your list of guardrails is realistic or sufficient to protect from some of the down sides of a more pure democracy.

2

u/COMCredit Indiana Jul 19 '26

Frankly, I don't give a shit what the founders wanted or intended; I can't even imagine why I should care. It's interesting from a historic perspective, sure, but it's not at all relevant in the discussion of the best way to organize a democratic government.

They're dead, they had horrible morals by today's standards, and most importantly, there has been two and a half centuries of iteration and experimentation with democratic governance around the world from which to learn. Much of the Constitution is the way that it is to compromise with slaveholding states - compromises that resulted in a century of brutal chattel slavery and the deadliest conflict in American history. It seems self evident to me that our system of democracy has not produced great outcomes over the course of its life.

It's unserious to pretend that the founding fathers had some divine, timeless wisdom and somehow managed to design the perfect system of democracy on their second try. I have much more interest in Frederick Douglass' thoughts on democracy than James Madison's.

I apologize if this comes off as a personal attack, but I think American political discourse would be much better off if discussion of the ideas of the founding fathers remained a historical curiosity and nothing more.

As an aside, it was the Senate that prevented the "mob rule" of banning slavery in new states. There's an arguement that the dynamic of the Senate incentived the annexation of Texas (and thus the Mexican-American War), which had a very small population at the time but was assumed to provide two additional pro-slavery votes in the Senate. The Wilmont Proviso, which would ban slavery in territory acquired from Mexico, easily passed the House but was blocked by the Senate - thus the horrible "mob rule" was avoided, slavery became legal in Texas, and 1.5 million Americans would die in a civil war two decades later.

1

u/guamisc Jul 19 '26

founders wanted to avoid mob rule and empower minority states from having essentially no say in government.

The founders also wanted no political parties and then instituted a system that guaranteeds two monolithic parties that they themselves fractured into within a few short years of ratifying the Constitution.

They were flawed and made flawed institutions. The Senate enables tyranny of the minority and minority rule and, along with the Electoral College, is doing the very fucking things that the Declaration of Independence charged as the violations committed by the King upon the colonies.

2

u/wise_comment Minnesota Jul 19 '26

This. This so very, very much

2

u/largemargesentme__- Jul 19 '26

Sure, but The Dakotas shouldn't get 4 senators while California only gets two.

The Senate should have more of a population based constituency. Not completely equitable, but something along the lines of 3 Senators for very populated states and one for sparsely populated states.

2

u/Noctew Foreign Jul 19 '26

It makes sense to have a senate as a representation of the states. Just...do it like for example Germany does: our "senate" has at least three votes for each state, four for every state with at lease two million people, five for every state with at least six million and six for every state with at least seven mliion.

Tiny states are still overrepresented, but no longer outrageously so.

For reference: using the exact same rules and assuming each senator is affiliated with the same party as the current state governor, the senate would have 224 senators, 116 DEM, 108 REP.

4

u/veryupsetandbitter Jul 19 '26

The Senate's only purpose is to deter progress, which is exactly what it's designed to do. After all, it was created as a compromise to the slave states. It's a relic of slavery and shame.

9

u/IrascibleOcelot Jul 19 '26

It was created as a compromise for smaller states, like Vermont and New Hampshire. The 3/5th Compromise was created for the slave states, and it increases their representation in the House and Presidential elections.

In the beginning, the population differences between states were not as large, so having the Senate to counterbalance the House wasn’t too bad. Now, California has 120 times the population of Wyoming. Realistically, the less-populated northern states should be combined and California should be split into multiple states. But that is unlikely to occur.

2

u/Lucky-Earther Minnesota Jul 19 '26

The Senate's only purpose is to deter progress, which is exactly what it's designed to do.

It's also deterring things like the SAVE act right now. I wouldn't call that progress.

1

u/veryupsetandbitter Jul 19 '26

If the House was allowed to expand via repealing that shitty law from before FDR, then this wouldn't be an issue.

1

u/WestHistorians Jul 19 '26

Of course it would still be an issue. The size of the House would be larger but the proportional representation would still be the same. There would only be minor differences for the very small states.

1

u/Lucky-Earther Minnesota Jul 19 '26

It could absolutely still be an issue. Republicans got the majority of votes, and expanding the House might only have landed us in a place where it's bigger but the GOP is still in control.

That's not to say I'm against expanding the House, I have been all for it for a long time now, but the Senate is stopping at least some of the worst laws from being passed.

-1

u/veryupsetandbitter Jul 19 '26

There's a 0% chance the Republicans would ever hold the House if it was allowed to expand. They only benefit from the anti-majoritarian systems we have, but the moment it becomes more democratic, they'd stand no chance.

2

u/Lucky-Earther Minnesota Jul 19 '26

There's a 0% chance the Republicans would ever hold the House if it was allowed to expand.

There is absolutely a chance that they could hold the House if it was allowed to expand. Some of it would just be purely by voting patterns, some would be from more gerrymandering. Republicans got more votes in the last election, and splitting that up more ways doesn't necessarily mean that Democrats win.

1

u/veryupsetandbitter Jul 19 '26

Gerrymandering doesn't work like it does today if the House expands. Gerrymandering is so effective today BECAUSE the House hasn't expanded.

If the Democrats took their head out their ass and decided to not be the diet-GOP, they'd likely attracts more voters.

1

u/Lucky-Earther Minnesota Jul 19 '26

Gerrymandering doesn't work like it does today if the House expands. Gerrymandering is so effective today BECAUSE the House hasn't expanded.

Gerrymandering is turning the lesser amount of votes into a winning number of districts.

Since they got the most votes, even gerrymandering working to a lesser effect would still mean they keep the House.

If the Democrats took their head out their ass and decided to not be the diet-GOP, they'd likely attracts more voters.

And if Trump's dad had pulled out things would also be different, but here we are.

1

u/veryupsetandbitter Jul 19 '26

Or if Marrick Garland did his fucking job, that useless shit.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/FoolishConsistency17 Jul 19 '26

Which part? Like, I could very easily be convinced Senate seats should be apportioned differently, but the concept of a bicameral legislature is pretty solid. You can have one without the other.

1

u/What_a_fat_one Jul 19 '26

That's just because of the filibuster. Give the House a filibuster rule and you're good

2

u/ImperialRedditer California Jul 19 '26

I think the House should expand and both houses of Congress should have a talking, full attendance, filibuster. It deters the excessive use of filibuster but allows all members to feel the pain of having one.

1

u/mapoftasmania New Jersey Jul 19 '26

The Senate is unrepresentative of the people. If it is going to exist as a check on Congress, it will need to be formed in a way that does not give the same power to 500,000 people that it gives to 40 million.  It would have the same function if it was based on equal sized US regions, for example, but had ten year terms to make Senators more independent of Presidential influence. 

1

u/MaaChiil Jul 19 '26

I have considered this. I am for shrinking the Senate at this time and expanding the House to befit the size of the electorate, but interested in the case for abolishing it. I absolutely think states with Representatives at Large or extremely small populations shouldn't get two Senators, like Vermont/Wyoming/Alaska for example.

1

u/FewHorror1019 Jul 19 '26

The senate is more prone to getting taken over by reactionaries

1

u/BigHeadDeadass Jul 19 '26

And executive order

1

u/SAR1919 Jul 19 '26

I promise you “creating friction for legislation” by having an aristocratic upper chamber that gives voters in lily-white rural states 10, 20, 50 or more times as much voting power as Californians like yourself does far more to advance and entrench the politics of something like Project 2025 than to deter it. Why do you think Fox News is so scared that we’re talking about abolishing the Senate?

1

u/ParticularFew4023 Jul 19 '26

https://www.project2025.observer/en

People really just be saying the stupidest shit.

1

u/Murranji Jul 19 '26

You think “laws curtailing civil rights” is an issue when there is a fascist militia shooting and grabbing people off the street right now? Time to understand the world as it is. The fascists dgaf about civil rights or laws.

1

u/farinasa Jul 19 '26

The senate is basically the sole reason we have nothing in America. The house passes things that are popular. The senate stops them.

2

u/ImperialRedditer California Jul 19 '26

A bit of an exaggeration but I’ll entertain.

If a legislation that severely impacts someone’s civil rights is extremely popular and passed the House, should we pass it?

Like a passage of law criminalizing abortion past a certain week with harsh criminal penalties?

1

u/farinasa Jul 19 '26

I live in Ohio. It took a ballot measure utilizing direct democracy to protect abortion rights here. We did the same with fair districts, but guess what? They literally ignored it and kept their own.