Maybe they got it wrong in the 1700"s???? -

[packman]

[Walleye]

1. That's why they invented constitutional amendments up to us now can't go on blaming the founders

[relayerbob]

2. Which requires 2/3 of those states (including the red ones) to agree to them

Good luck with that

[paleotn]

11. A system designed to deny the majority their rights.

If the minority thinks they're right then goddamn it convince > 50% of Americans and become the majority. Otherwise, it's tyranny of the minority.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

51. That would be wrong,

it's not 2/3rds of the states, it's 3/4ths of the states needed to ratify a change to the Constitution.

It's 2/3rds of the Congress need in agreement to send it to the states for ratification.

[DENVERPOPS]

55. Thanks MCE

I studied hard in school, but have learned much more these past few years and currently....

Thx Again

[MarineCombatEngineer]

60. Always a pleasure DENVERPOPS.

like you, I've learned alot here also.

[sir pball]

70. Changing equal representation in the Senate requires *all* states to agree.

The Founders seem to have anticipated a desire to end equal representation of the States in the Senate - Article V explicitly says "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

I can never, ever see a State, say VT or MT, agreeing to the loss of a Senator, and all it takes is one to kill the whole concept.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

72. Yes, that is absolutely correct,

and, like you, I just don't see any state giving up a Senator.

[Poiuyt]

3. I don't think Madison and the other framers of the Constitution ever believed it would

last this long. Now, of course, it's a political document. If there's something glaringly wrong, the politicians who benefit from the error won't vote to correct it.

[paleotn]

10. Sorry, but compared to the rest of the democratic West, they fucked up.

Due to slaver evil and some dumb idea that equal representation meant mob rule. The rest of the democratic west looks at us like we're stupid.

[Walleye]

12. It's still up to us to correct it somehow nobody else is gonna do it

[paleotn]

15. That deck is loaded too.

The Constitution, for all it's wonderful points, has serious flaws. Need I bring up the 3/5ths clause? It took the blood of hundreds of thousands and the 14th Amendment to change that one. The deck is unfairly loaded towards those who don't actually believe in representative democracy.

[Walleye]

16. We know that. I like to say my mom was born in a country where women didn't have the right to vote

[Volaris]

4. Jeffrsons greatest intellectual failure is that he did not conceive the industrial revolution that

was about to happen.

He didnt imagine it, because he lived in a bubble created by his OWNED farm labor.

Adams planted his own farm, with his own families work.

Jefferson wanted a whole continent full of educated, 'independent' planters like himself.

Adams damn well knew better...

[treestar]

9. But was it conceivable to them then?

Also I had the impression Jefferson wasn't a huge supporter of slavery and might have been willing to see it go.

The problem the founders had was the southern states would only go along with independence if they could keep the slavery.

Interesting question: If the other founders refused and just stayed with England, would slavery have ended sooner? I believe the British did end it sooner.

Smaller states were also worried about being dominated by the larger.

[Volaris]

13. Massachusetts was already beginning to 'industrialize'...so in that sense, the ''northern states'

were ahead of the curve, so to speak. It was an economic necessity for them given the lack of decent crop soil.

Jefferson was willing to acknowledge that slavery was on it's way to being a dead institution (i think), but NOT YET.

Yes, the southern states wouldnt have signed up if slavery had to be abolished.

[Voltaire2]

18. We were shipping all our raw materials to England

to supply their rapidly growing industrial economy, primarily textiles in the 18th century. Part of the conflict was about ending the restrictions on industry in the colonies.

[treestar]

5. They were not all slave owners

for heaven's sake.

[Voltaire2]

20. 10 of the first 12 presidents were

So sure not everyone.

[treestar]

21. The first 12 presidents did not

write the Constitution.

Those at the convention came from all the states.

[Voltaire2]

24. Oh quite a few years them did both.

The point being that for the first 50 years the slave states basically ran the country.

[onenote]

23. My understanding is that it was 8 of the first 12

Washington
Jefferson
Madison
Monroe
Jackson
Van Buren
Harrison
Tyler

And 17 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention were slaveowners.

[Voltaire2]

25. You're missing two.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_who_owned_slaves

[onenote]

27. I stand corrected.

[treestar]

28. Reading that, though, shows that things are not

always either/or. It was possible to own slaves, inherit them, but still believe the institution to be wrong. They lived in the time they lived in, and had to fight the proponents of slavery who still had power. Like we have to fight those today who would drag civilization backward.

[Voltaire2]

36. Owning another human is just wrong.

There are no excuses. But the point is that our nation’s leaders from the start were slave owners from slave states with the exception of the Adams. And just to fill that picture out, New England wealth was frequently derived from the slave trade, from building financing and operating slave transport ventures.

[treestar]

38. There would be "no excuses" today but then

it was part of the current society and they were born into it. Being alive in 1700s yes is an "excuse" for all sorts of barbarity, from bleeding people when they were sick, to hanging people for stealing a loaf of bread, to slavery and all the rest. Many of the Founders were among those who wanted to change things.

Somebody in 2422 might think we had no excuses for the pollution we are doing right now. Including those of us still contributing to it though we want to change it.

[Voltaire2]

39. No it was wrong then and there were many

people who knew it was wrong. Maybe just stop defending slavery?

[treestar]

41. Which I am not doing.

Again, someone in 2222 will say you had no excuses for driving your car, given the pollution it puts into the air. Whatever their values then, ours will seem savage or barbaric.

Were the Native Americans wrong for the things they did - that is slavery or partial sacrifice - or do you claim they were perfect? Were African civilizations wrong for whatever practices they engaged in that are no longer considered OK, whatever they may be? Why not? Oh and what about female genital mutilation that still occurs there? That's OK or are there excuses?

Things change. You are denying history. Like everything people did they knew was wrong. They did not know, that's why things have progressed. Again, the Founders were at the forefront of progress for that time.

[Haggard Celine]

6. I've always thought that the Senate, as a concept, was a bad idea.

We're essentially letting empty acreage vote in elections. Of course, the country probably wouldn't have gotten off the ground without such a compromise to give less populous states more power. The same goes for the three-fifths compromise. We got rid of slavery, however, and negated the three-fifths compromise. I wish we could ditch the Senate as well, but that would probably take another civil war.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

43. So you want a unicameral system?

Because we can talk about the problems with that.

[Haggard Celine]

46. What I'd really rather have is a parliamentary system.

And that wouldn't work with our current Constitution. But if we continued to have a bicameral system, I would like to see the Senate's power diminished. Don't have them as an equal of the House. They could serve an advisory role and maybe still have the power to appoint judges, but their approval wouldn't be needed on every bill. I would also make the House of Representatives a lot larger. However, there would have to be robust campaign finance reform to make any of that work. If we had publicly-financed elections, the system we already have would probably be a lot more tolerable.

[Zeitghost]

56. It's flawed...

But has a purpose. The Senate and it's institutions like the filibuster act as a brake on the system. It prevents the entire apparatus of government and it's policies from flip flopping every 4-8 years when a different party comes into power. We only have to go back to 2016 to find the Republicans in control of the White House and both houses of Congress.

The system is slow and hard to change. It's frustrating when trying to make progress but essential in preserving previous gains and it makes for a much more stable and predictable system which is essential to economic and political sustainability.

Our forefathers, despite their flaws, were wise.

[Haggard Celine]

58. That's all true.

I can definitely appreciate what the Founders were trying to do. And originally, they didn't want popular election of Senators.

It's particularly obvious today what the dangers of too much democracy might look like. We have a lot of people who have had schooling but are nonetheless ignorant, especially lacking critical thinking skills. We have politicians who can and do practically auction themselves off to the highest bidders. And we have a corporate media that constantly reinforces the views of wealthy oligarchs who only have their interests in mind.

More democracy might be more than our fickle public can handle. But it seems like our government is broken now. It's ability to respond to the needs of average citizens is stymied. Radical RWers have largely taken over and their goal is to destroy as much of the government as they can. When people feel like they can't get relief from the ballot box, they look for other ways to express their frustration.

Maybe the coming clash of ideas, whether violent or not, is inevitable. If it happens, the problems we're having with the Senate will be one of the main reasons it happens. During good times, people can appreciate some undemocratic aspects of their government. But during bad times, they want a government that is responsive to their needs. Despite some of the current economic indicators, people are perceiving these to be bad times, and they see the undemocratic Senate as a block in their way.

[paleotn]

7. I live in the second smallest state in the Union....

Though I love Pat Leahy and respect Bernie Sanders, we don't deserve the same amount of Senate representation as California, or New York, or Texas, or Florida, or.....

It's due to the evil of slavers and those who feared the mob a bit too much. Should have been done away with shortly after Senators became elected by the people they represent. That's right, sports fans. It was even worse prior to 1913 and the 17th amendment.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

44. The point being that both population and states are involved in legislation.

We are a federation of states. The state wanted/needed to have power. We aren't just a simple representative government.

[Poiuyt]

8. I think the bigger blunder was when they voted to cap the House at 435

The more populous states should have more Congresspeople so that the per person representation is the same as Wyoming.

That, and the Electoral College.

[Voltaire2]

22. 1929 permanent reapportionment act.

It’s supposed to be one per no more than 30,000 people.

The Rs and Ds did not want to expand the house as expansion threatens their stranglehold on the elections by lowering the bar for 3rd parties.

Reapportionment is great when your party owns the process- you get to take away seats from the other party.

[Bettie]

66. That is a law, even if it has the word "permanent" in the title.

it should be changed, because our population then was 104 million.

The size of the House should be three times what it is and now, a lot of work can be done remotely.

[Voltaire2]

69. Yup. Not only just a law, a really bad law.

But now as then, the two major parties have no interest in expanding the house.

[Bettie]

71. Because it would dilute their individual power

it would also, however, change the EC to be more representative of where people actually live.

[LudwigPastorius]

30. Amen

There is no good reason why we should remain stuck at 435 representatives for a population of 334 million people.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

31. Wish it was simple

1 vote for 1 person.

Republicans would implode and if we did that. They'd never win again and we could be
be rid of them.

Imagine a progressive Dem party and the regular Dem party.theres your two parties.

We dont need republicans,they've done nothing good for a very long time . They are antidemocratic and narcissism and sociopath traits run thick in republicans.

The other thing get rid of the law that says felons can run for president..
Change that it would sweep out the republican party too.

[Progressive Jones]

48. I'd like to see the SCOTUS expanded based on population. One Justice per X number of citizens. nt

[Bettie]

65. At very least

expand the court to one justice for each appellate court. That would bring us to 13.

But, given the population, we should have several panels running at any given time, which would allow justices with apparent conflicts of interest to not be seated on certain cases and the rest to be assigned randomly.

[Progressive Jones]

67. Great points. nt

[WhiteTara]

14. I thought the concept was

because a state like CA has so many more representatives having equal number of senators balanced the arraignment i.e., RI only has one congressional seat.

[treestar]

17. Smaller states thought they would be dominated

but as it works now, I doubt it would be so bad. Every state has both red and blue areas, so the House would not necessarily give the large population states power to dominate. It's the Senate doing that, where a blue state might send two blue Senators. But in the House surely California has red Reps and Texas has blue ones.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

45. Unicameral systems have their own problems.

[treestar]

61. Which are ?

I think Nebraska has that?

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

19. Perhaps, but we are stuck with it now, it can't be changed.

Senate apportionment cannot be amended. Its specifically exempt from the normal amendment process. Changing it requires the consent of all states.

[FakeNoose]

26. We can't get rid of the Senate but maybe there's a way to limit its power

Without an impossible Amendment to the Constitution, maybe laws can be passed that reduce the Senate's stranglehold on our government and economy? I don't have an answer but there are a lot of very smart people who contribute to DU every day. Let's hear some of your great ideas! Put on your thinking caps DUers.

[DENVERPOPS]

32. More dramatically illustrated

one U.S. Senate vote in Wyoming represents 290,000 people........

one U.S. Senate vote in California represents 20,000,000 people......

given that the senate is where the rubber truly meets the road, it is grossly lopsided..........

the same situation is true in many other states, North Dakota, South Dakota, etc etc

I think I saw where California alone is the 8th largest economy in the world......

[Crepuscular]

40. ...

As originally structured, the Senate was never intended to represent individual citizens, hence the lack of proportional representation. The House was intended to represent individual citizens of each state, so the number of Representatives was designed to be proportional to population. The Senate was intended to represent the interests of each state collectively, which is why Senators were appointed by State legislators, instead of by popular vote. By apportioning equal representation in the Senate to each State, the interests of the citizens of less populous states are protected from simply being dictated by the more populous states. The Senate was intended to some degree to act as a "brake", to prevent Federal legislation that applies to the whole country, from being dictated by a population majority which may be clustered regionally.

Several other thoughts, if both houses were apportioned simply by the population of the states, what then is the purpose of having a bicameral legislature? Also, for those who feel that population should be the sole factor considered when apportioning representation, do you feel that the same standard should be applied to the United Nations? China and India should have substantially more votes in the U.N. than the U.S. because they are more populous?

[DENVERPOPS]

42. Thanks for your explanation.

I am looking at your facts & trying to understand them and see why it works the way it does.......

My first question would be:

"By apportioning equal representation in the Senate to each State, the interests of the citizens of less populous states are protected from simply being dictated by the more populous states".

But can't the opposite be true, as we are seeing now, that a relatively small group of people are controlling a much larger segment of the population in the U.S. ???????????

[Crepuscular]

47. ...

Give me an example of where you think that is the case?

[DENVERPOPS]

49. Okay

start with the population of the least populated states, work your way up the list, and add them up until they equal the population of say California, or Texas, or Florida, or New York......

Take the number of U.S. Senators in the smaller states, and compare it to the two California U.S. Senators.....

I must not be seeing something that you are, or vice versa......???????????

[Crepuscular]

52. ...

you must have missed the part where I mentioned that Senators were not intended to be proportional to the population of each state, the system was not designed that way. If both houses were intended to offer proportional representation, what is the point of a bicameral legislature? The Senate was designed to represent the interests of each individual state as a unit of a collection of united states, not to directly represent the population of those states. Again, that is why Senators were originally appointed by State legislatures, not by popular vote. If Federal legislation was simply based on representatives based purely on population, a handful of states (those with the largest populations) could dictate all Federal policy.

For example, water is becoming a valuable commodity. I live in Michigan, which is one of a handful of states which control the largest fresh water concentration in the Country. If Federal policy was solely based on representation based on population, a coalition of Western States, which cumulatively have greater population than the Great Lakes states, could conceivably pass legislation forcing Michigan, Wisconsin, et al. to drain the Great Lakes and send that water West. With equal representation in the Senate, that Western Coalition would probably have a hard time forcing their will on Midwestern states of the same number, albeit with substantially lower population. A somewhat hyperbolic example but it gets my point across.

[DENVERPOPS]

54. Thanks

I'll try and read more on it.....

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

33. It's not as though the Founding Fathers

could have imagined the 50 states we now have. I suspect they honestly thought there would be a few more states, maybe as far west as the Mississippi River, but not the continent-spanning and then some country we have now.

Maybe the answer is for Californians to move to other states?

[IronLionZion]

34. Most of the other British colonies turned out pretty well

Canada, Australia, India, etc. turned out OK.

[ymetca]

35. As a thought experiment

I try to imagine what a Global Direct Democracy (or GDD for short) might look like. Suppose every person on Earth could vote directly on what this GDD should do. What would all the people of the world actually agree upon?

I'm guessing that something akin to a Universal Basic Income would almost immediately garner massive global support, along with "free" food, medical care, housing, education, and so on --all our "basic" Maslow Hierarchy of Needs, essentially.

After that, passing any kind of legislation would have to have such mass appeal that it might actually reduce the current mass destruction going on in the name of "progress". Decisions would need much more analysis and evidence of wide-spread "common good" before gaining acceptance. Voting might actually become more "gradient", and tentative. And more reversible.

Whenever I become alarmed by this idea, I examine why, and realize it's because I feel myself to be "in the minority". Then I wonder why I always feel that way, and come to understand it is because our system is designed to make me feel like that. It's done on purpose. People are driven by deprivation, want, and fear, and they use divide and conquer tactics in a never-ending cycle in the lust for power, under conditions of dog-eat-dog competition where nothing is assured, and it all can be taken away at any moment.

But there is already enough for everyone, everywhere. There is no need to continue this madness. As a species we've achieved Level One Planetary dominance, and we better grow up real quick and start self-governing with some sense of responsibility for each other and our Home World.

And then I realize that the only way to overcome this divide and conquer system of mass carnage is to create a 1 person, 1 vote GDD. It is actually possible with our current technology - a Global Direct Democracy for the first time in human history. Yep, that Great Bugaboo, the "New World Order". Only not the one our current overlords actually want us to have.

Time to put away childish things.

[Voltaire2]

37. I agree.

[Lurker Deluxe]

59. But there is already enough for everyone, everywhere.

Enough what?

[ymetca]

73. Good question!

Reminds me of that scene in Steve Martin's film The Jerk, where he proclaims he doesn't need anything, then starts finding all these caveats, like his lamp, etc.

Probably the key question, frankly.

[Jose Garcia]

50. 4/5 of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not own slaves

[Bucky]

64. But the majority of states that passed & ratified the Const'n did allow it

Even Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York had slavery in 1787

[Straw Man]

57. I can certainly see the reasons for a bicameral legislature ...

... in which one house is apportioned by population and the other by statehood, as now. Without it, we wouldn't really have a federal system, which I believe to be fundamental in country as large and diverse as ours.

However, I agree with those who suggest limiting the power of the Senate to some degree.

[Bucky]

62. It was a clever solution for 1787.

It's causing more problems than it prevents now

[sarisataka]

63. I don't know about the 1700s

But meme makers of the 2000's get it wrong

[lagomorph777]

68. No, they intended this result, to protect slaveholders.

Same is true today.