The 48 Senators who voted GUILTY represent 18 million MORE people than the 52 who voted

[ecstatic]

not guilty.

Link to tweet

?s=20

This cannot continue. Both the Senate and the Electoral College need to be abolished, and quickly. A tall order, I know, but what's the alternative?

Today's upper chamber has completed its transformation into a smaller version of its more populist sibling, the House—except this one does not come close to reflecting the actual population, or for that matter, the actual population's actual interests. The Senate's once-celebrated hallmarks of comity are history. Blue-slipping is on the way out. For judicial and executive branch appointees, the filibuster is gone, and I believe that once a party that holds the White House, the House, and a slim Senate majority feels so moved, it will abolish it for legislation, too. This Republican-controlled Senate's efforts to pass the tax bill and repeal the Affordable Care Act—its two most important policy goals—proceeded under a process that is not subject to filibuster, because Mitch McConnell knew he'd be unable to earn 60 votes for either one, and therefore didn't bother trying.

The Senate's transformation into a funhouse-mirror version of the House is a quiet emergency for democracy, because its members are still allocated equally among states. And since there now are a greater number of sparsely-populated, mostly-white, right-leaning states than there are heavily-populated, racially-diverse, left-leaning states, the Senate acts to preserve power for people and groups who would otherwise have failed to earn it. A voter in Wyoming (population 579,000) enjoys roughly 70 times more influence in the Senate than a voter in California (population 39.5 million), which sounds like the most unfair statistic in American politics, until you remember that taxpaying U.S. citizens in Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico still have no influence in the Senate at all.

An undemocratic body yields undemocratic results. The 50 senators who voted to confirm the wildly-unpopular Brett Kavanaugh represent only 44 percent of the population; the 51 senators who passed a widely-reviled $1.5 trillion tax cut for the wealthy, about the same. In this year's midterms, across-the-board enthusiasm for Democrats is likely to flip the House but not the Senate, since so many Democrats face built-in partisan disadvantages—the accidental byproducts of border-drawing history. In presidential elections, the Senate guarantees at least three electors to seven states whose populations merit only one seat in the House: Alaska, Delaware, Montana, Vermont, Wyoming, and both Dakotas. This scheme basically guarantees a net of six electoral votes to the Republican candidate, every single time; it is one of many absurd anachronisms that lead to America, say, spending four years under a president who earned a full 3 million votes fewer than his closest competitor.

Read More: https://www.gq.com/story/the-case-for-abolishing-the-senate

[saidsimplesimon]

1. Our election system

is in need of a major overhaul. I think we need realistic approaches to accomplish that goal. imo

[jimfields33]

2. We just need 2/3rds of the senate and House

And 2/3rds of the state houses. I know we were big time behind on state houses, but I think we’ve been gaining some since 2016. We maybe closer to having this done.

[dware]

6. You're right about needing 2/3rds of the Congress,

but it's not 2/3rds of the States, it's 3/4er's of the States for a Constitutional change, that means it takes only 13 States to deep six any change to the Constitution.

[jimfields33]

8. Dang. What a hurdle.

[crickets]

3. If the decision had gone the way you wanted it to, you would not be talking about this.

I have no argument with scrapping the Electoral College. It is outdated and thwarts the popular vote.

However, regarding our bicameral Congress:

The Senate is set up to represent land: the individual states. It is the House of Representatives that is set up to represent those states according to population. The two houses balance one another so that small states or states with lower populations are still accorded enough power not to be drowned out by larger, more populous states.

This is intentional, and when relatively honest people hold office, it works.

Our institutions did not let us down here. The PEOPLE in them did.

No one is going to get rid of the Senate. It's not going to happen. Get rid of lousy Senators the same way we get rid of lousy Representatives and lousy Presidents. VOTE.

[apcalc]

5. Good point.

[ecstatic]

7. "when relatively honest people hold office, it works"

We need a system that holds up even when dishonest people hold office.

[apcalc]

4. And just because he was acquitted ,

Does not mean he is NOT GUILTY.

[Boomerproud]

9. Good night America, how are ya?

You could've been a contender. My SINCERE and PROFOUND apology to the veteran and active people in the Armed Forces and the civilian heroes who have given all to this country only to be spat upon by an illegal administration and 52 .