https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...nt/577222/

John Dingell has some other interesting ideas too but the one that is gaining some headlines is his idea to get rid of the Senate. From the article....

The end of minority rule in our legislative and executive branches. The Great Compromise, as it was called when it was adopted by the Constitution’s Framers, required that all states, big and small, have two senators. The idea that Rhode Island needed two U.S. senators to protect itself from being bullied by Massachusetts emerged under a system that governed only 4 million Americans.

Today, in a nation of more than 325 million and 37 additional states, not only is that structure antiquated, it’s downright dangerous. California has almost 40 million people, while the 20 smallest states have a combined population totaling less than that. Yet because of an 18th-century political deal, those 20 states have 40 senators, while California has just two. These sparsely populated, usually conservative states can block legislation supported by a majority of the American people. That’s just plain crazy.

The math is even starker when you look at places like Wyoming and Vermont, each of which has fewer people in the entire state (575,000 and 625,000, respectively) than does the Twelfth Congressional District of Michigan, which I last represented and whose more than 700,000 residents are now in the hands of my wife, Debbie. She fights her heart out for them every single day. Yet her efforts are often stymied simply because it is understood that even should a good bill make it through the hyper-partisan House, it will die a quiet death in the Senate because of the disproportionate influence of small states.



With my own eyes, I’ve watched in horror and increasing anger as that imbalance in power has become the primary cause of our national legislative paralysis. In primaries, the vocal rump of a minority of obnoxious asses can hold the entire country hostage to extremist views. This insanity has sent true public servants fleeing for the exits. The Electoral College has the same structural flaw. Along with 337 of my colleagues, I voted in 1969 to amend the Constitution to abolish it. Twice in the past 18 years, we’ve seen the loser of the popular vote become president through the Electoral College formula, which gives that same disproportionate weight to small states, each of which gets two automatic votes for its two senators.

My friend Norm Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, sees a demographic shift coming that will effectively transform us into two countries. He tells me that “in 2050, 70 percent of Americans will be living in just 15 states. That 70 percent will then have 30 senators, and the remaining 30 percent of the people, mainly those living in the smallest and poorest states, will have 70 senators.”

How do we fix this? Practically speaking, it will be very difficult, given the specific constitutional protection granted these small states to veto any threat to their outsize influence.

There is a solution, however, that could gain immediate popular support: Abolish the Senate. At a minimum, combine the two chambers into one, and the problem will be solved. It will take a national movement, starting at the grassroots level, and will require massive organizing, strategic voting, and strong leadership over the course of a generation. But it has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? “Abolish the Senate.” I’m having blue caps printed up with that slogan right now. They will be made in America.

(12-04-2018 08:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...nt/577222/
John Dingell has some other interesting ideas too but the one that is gaining some headlines is his idea to get rid of the Senate. From the article....
The end of minority rule in our legislative and executive branches. The Great Compromise, as it was called when it was adopted by the Constitution’s Framers, required that all states, big and small, have two senators. The idea that Rhode Island needed two U.S. senators to protect itself from being bullied by Massachusetts emerged under a system that governed only 4 million Americans.
Today, in a nation of more than 325 million and 37 additional states, not only is that structure antiquated, it’s downright dangerous. California has almost 40 million people, while the 20 smallest states have a combined population totaling less than that. Yet because of an 18th-century political deal, those 20 states have 40 senators, while California has just two. These sparsely populated, usually conservative states can block legislation supported by a majority of the American people. That’s just plain crazy.
The math is even starker when you look at places like Wyoming and Vermont, each of which has fewer people in the entire state (575,000 and 625,000, respectively) than does the Twelfth Congressional District of Michigan, which I last represented and whose more than 700,000 residents are now in the hands of my wife, Debbie. She fights her heart out for them every single day. Yet her efforts are often stymied simply because it is understood that even should a good bill make it through the hyper-partisan House, it will die a quiet death in the Senate because of the disproportionate influence of small states.
With my own eyes, I’ve watched in horror and increasing anger as that imbalance in power has become the primary cause of our national legislative paralysis. In primaries, the vocal rump of a minority of obnoxious asses can hold the entire country hostage to extremist views. This insanity has sent true public servants fleeing for the exits. The Electoral College has the same structural flaw. Along with 337 of my colleagues, I voted in 1969 to amend the Constitution to abolish it. Twice in the past 18 years, we’ve seen the loser of the popular vote become president through the Electoral College formula, which gives that same disproportionate weight to small states, each of which gets two automatic votes for its two senators.
My friend Norm Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, sees a demographic shift coming that will effectively transform us into two countries. He tells me that “in 2050, 70 percent of Americans will be living in just 15 states. That 70 percent will then have 30 senators, and the remaining 30 percent of the people, mainly those living in the smallest and poorest states, will have 70 senators.”
How do we fix this? Practically speaking, it will be very difficult, given the specific constitutional protection granted these small states to veto any threat to their outsize influence.
There is a solution, however, that could gain immediate popular support: Abolish the Senate. At a minimum, combine the two chambers into one, and the problem will be solved. It will take a national movement, starting at the grassroots level, and will require massive organizing, strategic voting, and strong leadership over the course of a generation. But it has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? “Abolish the Senate.” I’m having blue caps printed up with that slogan right now. They will be made in America.

Given the text of Article V of the constitution, that may be a difficult row to hoe, to wit:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

It's the one part of the Constitution that cannot be amended. I don't see how the Senate could be abolished without violating that provision.

Pretty sure the framers realized the country would grow exponentially and therefore the equal representation clauses would be even more relevant once the population grew. Three or four states would be running the country if not.

(12-04-2018 08:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  My friend Norm Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, sees a demographic shift coming that will effectively transform us into two countries. He tells me that “in 2050, 70 percent of Americans will be living in just 15 states. That 70 percent will then have 30 senators, and the remaining 30 percent of the people, mainly those living in the smallest and poorest states, will have 70 senators.”

How do we fix this? Practically speaking, it will be very difficult, given the specific constitutional protection granted these small states to veto any threat to their outsize influence.

Population of the colonies -- 1770

1. Virginia 447,016
2. Pennsylvania 240,057
3. Massachusetts 235,808
4. Maryland 202,599
5. North Carolina 197,200
6. Connecticut 183,881
7. New York 162,920
8. South Carolina 124,244
9. New Jersey 117,431
10. Rhode Island 58,196
11. New Hampshire 62,396
12. Delaware 35,496
13. Georgia 23,375

When you run the numbers on this population of the colonies you have

85 per cent of the Senate vote controlled by 68 per cent of the population.
77 per cent of the Senate vote controlled by 55 per cent of the population.
69 per cent of the Senate vote controlled by 46 per cent of the population. (close to what the idiot complains of)
61 per cent of the Senate vote controlled by 37 per cent of the population. (essentially what the idiot complains of)

Given those black and white numbers you may want to lay off the "doubt they foresaw the extreme population disparities" load of sh-t when stating the injustice in "30% of the population permanently controlling 70% of the senate vote". Approximately the same disparities existed at the time of formation.

Jeezus H. Fing Krist. GD wholly inaccurate talking points again.....

I mean, 60 per cent of the Senate controlled by 37 per cent of the population is *nowhere* even in the ballpark of "70 by 30".... I wonder where the gd magic marker line is here? Is 63 per cent by 37 per cent bad? Problem is that the problem is vastly overstated by the people complaining the loudest. Problem is also that the people complaining the loudest tend to ignore the historical numbers.

(12-04-2018 09:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 08:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...nt/577222/
John Dingell has some other interesting ideas too but the one that is gaining some headlines is his idea to get rid of the Senate. From the article....
The end of minority rule in our legislative and executive branches. The Great Compromise, as it was called when it was adopted by the Constitution’s Framers, required that all states, big and small, have two senators. The idea that Rhode Island needed two U.S. senators to protect itself from being bullied by Massachusetts emerged under a system that governed only 4 million Americans.
Today, in a nation of more than 325 million and 37 additional states, not only is that structure antiquated, it’s downright dangerous. California has almost 40 million people, while the 20 smallest states have a combined population totaling less than that. Yet because of an 18th-century political deal, those 20 states have 40 senators, while California has just two. These sparsely populated, usually conservative states can block legislation supported by a majority of the American people. That’s just plain crazy.
The math is even starker when you look at places like Wyoming and Vermont, each of which has fewer people in the entire state (575,000 and 625,000, respectively) than does the Twelfth Congressional District of Michigan, which I last represented and whose more than 700,000 residents are now in the hands of my wife, Debbie. She fights her heart out for them every single day. Yet her efforts are often stymied simply because it is understood that even should a good bill make it through the hyper-partisan House, it will die a quiet death in the Senate because of the disproportionate influence of small states.
With my own eyes, I’ve watched in horror and increasing anger as that imbalance in power has become the primary cause of our national legislative paralysis. In primaries, the vocal rump of a minority of obnoxious asses can hold the entire country hostage to extremist views. This insanity has sent true public servants fleeing for the exits. The Electoral College has the same structural flaw. Along with 337 of my colleagues, I voted in 1969 to amend the Constitution to abolish it. Twice in the past 18 years, we’ve seen the loser of the popular vote become president through the Electoral College formula, which gives that same disproportionate weight to small states, each of which gets two automatic votes for its two senators.
My friend Norm Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, sees a demographic shift coming that will effectively transform us into two countries. He tells me that “in 2050, 70 percent of Americans will be living in just 15 states. That 70 percent will then have 30 senators, and the remaining 30 percent of the people, mainly those living in the smallest and poorest states, will have 70 senators.”
How do we fix this? Practically speaking, it will be very difficult, given the specific constitutional protection granted these small states to veto any threat to their outsize influence.
There is a solution, however, that could gain immediate popular support: Abolish the Senate. At a minimum, combine the two chambers into one, and the problem will be solved. It will take a national movement, starting at the grassroots level, and will require massive organizing, strategic voting, and strong leadership over the course of a generation. But it has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? “Abolish the Senate.” I’m having blue caps printed up with that slogan right now. They will be made in America.

Given the text of Article V of the constitution, that may be a difficult row to hoe, to wit:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

It's the one part of the Constitution that cannot be amended. I don't see how the Senate could be abolished without violating that provision.

Living Constitution, dude, Living Constitution. Pretty much sums it all up with those two little words.....

Mr. Dingell and his wife have represented the same district for over 60 years. Maybe that situation should be abolished. I don't think the framers foresaw that either.

So because the Senate is doing the exact thing it was designed to do, prevent the largest states from ruling the smaller states, we need to abolish it?


Liberalism is a mental disease.

Instead of abolishing the Senate, maybe the solution is breaking California into several states.

Whenever you're arguing (with a straight face) that the Senate, Electoral College, and Supreme Court all have to go, I'd rather just work on splitting into two countries at that point, because there's no reasoning with you.

To Congressman Dingleberry: No.

(12-04-2018 09:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 08:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  My friend Norm Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, sees a demographic shift coming that will effectively transform us into two countries. He tells me that “in 2050, 70 percent of Americans will be living in just 15 states. That 70 percent will then have 30 senators, and the remaining 30 percent of the people, mainly those living in the smallest and poorest states, will have 70 senators.”

How do we fix this? Practically speaking, it will be very difficult, given the specific constitutional protection granted these small states to veto any threat to their outsize influence.

Population of the colonies -- 1770

1. Virginia 447,016
2. Pennsylvania 240,057
3. Massachusetts 235,808
4. Maryland 202,599
5. North Carolina 197,200
6. Connecticut 183,881
7. New York 162,920
8. South Carolina 124,244
9. New Jersey 117,431
10. Rhode Island 58,196
11. New Hampshire 62,396
12. Delaware 35,496
13. Georgia 23,375

When you run the numbers on this population of the colonies you have

85 per cent of the Senate vote controlled by 68 per cent of the population.
77 per cent of the Senate vote controlled by 55 per cent of the population.
69 per cent of the Senate vote controlled by 46 per cent of the population. (close to what the idiot complains of)
61 per cent of the Senate vote controlled by 37 per cent of the population. (essentially what the idiot complains of)

Given those black and white numbers you may want to lay off the "doubt they foresaw the extreme population disparities" load of sh-t when stating the injustice in "30% of the population permanently controlling 70% of the senate vote". Approximately the same disparities existed at the time of formation.

Jeezus H. Fing Krist. GD wholly inaccurate talking points again.....

I mean, 60 per cent of the Senate controlled by 37 per cent of the population is *nowhere* even in the ballpark of "70 by 30".... I wonder where the gd magic marker line is here? Is 63 per cent by 37 per cent bad? Problem is that the problem is vastly overstated by the people complaining the loudest. Problem is also that the people complaining the loudest tend to ignore the historical numbers.

Interesting perspective. Thanks for bringing that up.

I wonder why Georgia was so sparsely populated? Obviously climate was an issue but still why would it be so much smaller than South Carolina? Maybe Indians were an issue - just wondering out loud.

(12-04-2018 09:31 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 09:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 08:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  My friend Norm Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, sees a demographic shift coming that will effectively transform us into two countries. He tells me that “in 2050, 70 percent of Americans will be living in just 15 states. That 70 percent will then have 30 senators, and the remaining 30 percent of the people, mainly those living in the smallest and poorest states, will have 70 senators.”

How do we fix this? Practically speaking, it will be very difficult, given the specific constitutional protection granted these small states to veto any threat to their outsize influence.

Population of the colonies -- 1770

1. Virginia 447,016
2. Pennsylvania 240,057
3. Massachusetts 235,808
4. Maryland 202,599
5. North Carolina 197,200
6. Connecticut 183,881
7. New York 162,920
8. South Carolina 124,244
9. New Jersey 117,431
10. Rhode Island 58,196
11. New Hampshire 62,396
12. Delaware 35,496
13. Georgia 23,375

When you run the numbers on this population of the colonies you have

85 per cent of the Senate vote controlled by 68 per cent of the population.
77 per cent of the Senate vote controlled by 55 per cent of the population.
69 per cent of the Senate vote controlled by 46 per cent of the population. (close to what the idiot complains of)
61 per cent of the Senate vote controlled by 37 per cent of the population. (essentially what the idiot complains of)

Given those black and white numbers you may want to lay off the "doubt they foresaw the extreme population disparities" load of sh-t when stating the injustice in "30% of the population permanently controlling 70% of the senate vote". Approximately the same disparities existed at the time of formation.

Jeezus H. Fing Krist. GD wholly inaccurate talking points again.....

I mean, 60 per cent of the Senate controlled by 37 per cent of the population is *nowhere* even in the ballpark of "70 by 30".... I wonder where the gd magic marker line is here? Is 63 per cent by 37 per cent bad? Problem is that the problem is vastly overstated by the people complaining the loudest. Problem is also that the people complaining the loudest tend to ignore the historical numbers.

Interesting perspective. Thanks for bringing that up.

I wonder why Georgia was so sparsely populated? Obviously climate was an issue but still why would it be so much smaller than South Carolina? Maybe Indians were an issue - just wondering out loud.

One of the drawbacks was that Georgia was originally a debtor's prisoner colony, iirc.

Also it was to be a buttress against Spanish invasion from Florida, and was the last colony to be chartered. Rising standards of living in Europe after the charter put a damper on emigration out of Europe to the colonies --- so the last to be born never got a chance at that point to be populated as well as its neighbors on the continent.

(12-04-2018 09:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 09:31 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I wonder why Georgia was so sparsely populated? Obviously climate was an issue but still why would it be so much smaller than South Carolina? Maybe Indians were an issue - just wondering out loud.

One of the drawbacks was that Georgia was originally a debtor's prisoner colony, iirc.

I think it was also one of the youngest, if not the youngest, of the colonies.

ETA: I see you added that.

(12-04-2018 09:07 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Pretty sure the framers realized the country would grow exponentially and therefore the equal representation clauses would be even more relevant once the population grew. Three or four states would be running the country if not.

Shame you have someone in Congress so long who is so ignorant of the framers and the reasons.

There are very good reasons nearly every state and nearly every Republic has bicameral legislatures. It provides a check on the passage of bills and a limitation on the power of the legislature.

(12-04-2018 09:31 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 09:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 08:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  My friend Norm Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, sees a demographic shift coming that will effectively transform us into two countries. He tells me that “in 2050, 70 percent of Americans will be living in just 15 states. That 70 percent will then have 30 senators, and the remaining 30 percent of the people, mainly those living in the smallest and poorest states, will have 70 senators.”

How do we fix this? Practically speaking, it will be very difficult, given the specific constitutional protection granted these small states to veto any threat to their outsize influence.

Population of the colonies -- 1770

1. Virginia 447,016
2. Pennsylvania 240,057
3. Massachusetts 235,808
4. Maryland 202,599
5. North Carolina 197,200
6. Connecticut 183,881
7. New York 162,920
8. South Carolina 124,244
9. New Jersey 117,431
10. Rhode Island 58,196
11. New Hampshire 62,396
12. Delaware 35,496
13. Georgia 23,375

When you run the numbers on this population of the colonies you have

85 per cent of the Senate vote controlled by 68 per cent of the population.
77 per cent of the Senate vote controlled by 55 per cent of the population.
69 per cent of the Senate vote controlled by 46 per cent of the population. (close to what the idiot complains of)
61 per cent of the Senate vote controlled by 37 per cent of the population. (essentially what the idiot complains of)

Given those black and white numbers you may want to lay off the "doubt they foresaw the extreme population disparities" load of sh-t when stating the injustice in "30% of the population permanently controlling 70% of the senate vote". Approximately the same disparities existed at the time of formation.

Jeezus H. Fing Krist. GD wholly inaccurate talking points again.....

I mean, 60 per cent of the Senate controlled by 37 per cent of the population is *nowhere* even in the ballpark of "70 by 30".... I wonder where the gd magic marker line is here? Is 63 per cent by 37 per cent bad? Problem is that the problem is vastly overstated by the people complaining the loudest. Problem is also that the people complaining the loudest tend to ignore the historical numbers.

Interesting perspective. Thanks for bringing that up.

I wonder why Georgia was so sparsely populated? Obviously climate was an issue but still why would it be so much smaller than South Carolina? Maybe Indians were an issue - just wondering out loud.

Georgia was the last settled. It did have established Creek and Cherokee populations that were pretty "civilized." It also didn't allow slavery at first, probably unique among the colonies.

We did not hear him complaining when the Democrat controlled Senate was ignoring legislation passed by the Republican House during the Obama administration.

This guy is an idiot.

We need to get rid of the 17th amendment not get rid of the Senate.

(12-04-2018 09:26 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  So because the Senate is doing the exact thing it was designed to do, prevent the largest states from ruling the smaller states, we need to abolish it?


Liberalism is a mental disease.

Yup, as soon a I read the title I knew who this would be.

Sorry Dingbell, this ain 1950 anymore.

That’s a dangerous and extremist position he holds.

The Senate represents the states and the House represents the people. That is house it was set up. Now whatever amendment it was that made the Senate a popular Election (too lazy to look it up), that it the amendment that should be overturned.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk