
What Democracy?: The case for abolishing the United States Senate - kudu
http://harpers.org/archive/2004/05/what-democracy-the-case-for-abolishing-the-united-states-senate/
======
AndrewKemendo
_The answer is that democracy is itself a protection against tyranny, whether
by the one (autocracy) or by the few (oligarchy)._

Except it's not, which is explicitly the reason for the Senate. It is there to
slow things down - by design. Democracies have a pretty bad track record for
turning into oligarchies.

Of late there has been much discussion about the reforming of the American
governmental system because of it's "dysfunction." As a result there are a
whole lot of Baby out with the bathwater approaches which are offered up as
solutions. This article does the same and wishes away most of the problems
that the idealization of the Senate is there to solve.

The article's main complaint seems to be that the "aristocracy" of the Senate
maintains the power imbalance of the United States, which absolves the
electorate of any responsibility. In fact the article never discusses anything
beyond _the fact that_ the system is corrupted and that it is racially skewed.
Never as to why, or describing some underlying mechanism that is keeping it
there.

In the end, unless you think voting is "rigged" or somehow a sham, the
responsibility falls on the electorate to manage who sits in the seats of
power. Widespread apathy and disengagement (for often practical and legitimate
reasons) keeps the same people in power and ensures that the wrong decisions
and power will continue to be consolidated into too few hands.

Good example here: [http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-
november-11-2013/not-s...](http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-
november-11-2013/not-so-angry-voters)

------
ctdonath
Originally the Senate was not elected by the people directly as democracy, but
selected by their states as a republic. Direct election of Senators required a
Constitutional a amendment.

Don't abolish the Senate, abolish the amendment that screwed it up.

~~~
gte910h
It didn't screw it up. Sentatorial elections (and state govts in general) were
horribly corrupt.

~~~
protomyth
It screwed up the balance and if state governments are "corrupt" then it is up
to the citizens of that state to fix it.

Given the ability to travel, my dream amendment would be to have the sitting
governor of each state be that states single senator. That would stop some of
the budget busting stupidity of Senators who have never done a budget.

~~~
gte910h
> then it is up to the citizens of that state to fix it.

They did, they made them directly elected, and a considerable chunk of the
state corruption died down

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
is a fine issue

~~~
protomyth
That wasn't a fix since the Senators are no longer beholden to the states so
they don't consider budgets. Look at the debt and bills that negatively impact
states. It just moved the corruption and added lobbying in DC.

------
shittyanalogy
Ok, can we at least acknowledge that _this_ article is completely off topic
and has no business being discussed on a news site for computer programmers.

specifically: _Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports,
unless they 're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon._

This is:

    
    
        A) About politics and politics alone.
        B) Not in any way a new phenomenon.

~~~
tbrownaw
I thought politics was taken to usually refer to what the government is doing.
This is more about how the government should be shaped.

------
protomyth
Given the Speaker of the Houses we have had over the years, I shudder to think
what would have happened without the states interests being protected by the
Senate. In fact, making Senators directly elected has been problematic for
state budgets and allowed an overreach in DC that is not proper.

------
tbrownaw
If we're trying to find a better government, wouldn't it be better to decouple
things? Break down the responisbilities of government into a few major areas
that probably align fairly well to the existing structure (DoD, NIST, IRS &
the social safety net programs, etc), and then instead of electing
representatives and senators who get put on committees by seniority, elect
people specifically to small-ish committees responsible for policy in one
specific area.

------
Retric
IMO, DC not having a vote is a far larger issue. The senate may not be 1 man 1
vote but DC has hundreds of thousands of people with no say in federal laws /
taxes and rather limited self rule.

~~~
vaadu
DC doesn't warrant being a state. Just like Virginia getting back it's land
from DC in the mid 1800s, Maryland ought to get back the land it gave minus
the mall area, SCOTUS, white house and capital.

