Do we really need a Senate?

Trish · Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:27 pm

It just seems like the Senate is where legislation goes to die. Do we even need a bicameral state and federal legislature? Would things be better or worse if we just had a House?

LanDroid · Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:10 pm

The House is where nutcases can get crazy stuff passed. The Senate is a more sober deliberative body that can correct some problems from the House plus the two versions of a bill must be reconciled. That's a gross simplification, but given this tension created by the Founding Fathers, why would you want to eliminate the Senate?

Trish · Fri Jan 08, 2010 11:03 pm

I'm not saying there aren't wacky representatives by any means. I wrote that out of frustration. Every time I sit down to read the news, some piece of legislation like a gay marriage bill passes state houses and gets killed in their senates.

tbarron · Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:16 pm

That's checks and balances for you.

I just think that if we're going to call the senior house the "Senate", we should call the junior house the "Junate" and be consistent.

I'd be inclined to support a secure online voting system and just let everyone vote on everything. Why have people to represent us when technology could allow us to represent ourselves?

etudiant · Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:04 am

Your feelings on an upper House of Representatives are completely in keeping with the long history of British parliamentary procedure LanDroid. The original impulse for a secondary review of legislation was that the commoners that may be elected to parliament were probably not all that competent, and may be swayed to extremes by uninformed counsel, or perhaps the prospect of personal gain. Therefore, another body, the House of Lords, was enacted to give mature, sober second thought to the impulses of the bumpkins and commoners. They were of course, appointed by their peers in the aristocracy, namely, people of quality. In case the commoners came up with ideas too absurd to be considered, the upper house could strike down the offending legislation, therefore maintaining stability, and protecting the values of society.

When the US decided to split off from the empire, they maintained many of the British ideas about government, blending them slightly with some sentimental ideas about ancient Greek and Roman society. The House of Lords became an elected senate.

Nothing really stays the same over time, does it? The inheritors of the class conscious British system of government are now anything but class conscious, and the upper houses of countries like Canada and Australia, etc., are little more than rubber stamps. If they ever tried to suggest that there upbringing or inherited DNA gave them a more enlightened view of sociological problems, the said senators or lords would face a metaphorical firing squad.

Sadly, corruption is something that seems to prevail over time. Both legislative houses in the US are far from immune. The bending to special interest groups, whether in the House or in the Senate, can be worrying in the extreme. That is why some common sense ideas like health care reform get stalled. Some have tremendous amounts of money to be had, depending on how things go, and they seek out the fellowship of legislators. Things like gay rights get tossed out, not such much because of philosophical belief, but because of the volume of calls from the intellectually disinterested.

Having no senate probably wouldn’t make much difference, in my opinion. Having the media, and the general public hold politician’s feet to the coals would likely have more effect.

JulianTheApostate · Fri Feb 19, 2010 12:37 am

Two features of the US Senate make it very difficult to pass liberal legislation. A super-majority of 60% is needed to break a filibuster and vote on an issue. In addition, each state has two Senators, giving more representation to residents of smaller states by population, who tend to be more conservative than residents of larger states.

Instead of asking whether "we really need a Senate", I'd ask whether we need a legislative body with those features. In both cases, my answer is no. The super-majority requirement makes it more difficult to initial programs that most Senators think is a good idea. And having two Senators per state is somewhat undemocratic, since there's no reason av voter should have more influence on the makeup of the Senate just because that person happens to live in a less populous state.

Forum rules

Do we really need a Senate? Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!