• grue@lemmy.world
    131·
    1 month ago

    you should at least make sure you understand why it was created in the first place. That is, to create a union of states where each one has a certain level of autonomy.

    The Senate is meant to represent each state’s individual interests in a national legislature.

    …

    The real issue, in my opinion, is the Reapportionment Act of 1929 that put a hard cap on the number of members of the House of Representatives at 435 seats.

    IMO the real reason the Senate is broken is the 17th Amendment (having Senators be directly elected by popular vote instead of chosen by state legislatures). That’s the point when it ceased to be fit for its original purpose (representing the State as its own entity in a way materially different from the House, maximising separation of powers) and should’ve just been abolished entirely instead.

    I agree with you that the House is broken by the Reapportionment Act because there are just too damn many constituents per legislator, but that issue is separate from what’s wrong with the Senate.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      71·
      1 month ago

      but that issue is separate from what’s wrong with the Senate.

      I’m not sure that it is. We have a bicameral legislature, you can’t really separate them completely. Together they are “Congress”.

      I think the Senate would be fine as it is if we actually had a proportionate House of Reps.

      And maybe the Senate shouldn’t be the “upper house” as I think “The People’s House” (in this scenario, actually proportionate) should be considered more important.

      But I think calling for the abolishment of the Senate entirely is misguided. I like the idea of a federation of states, each with a degree of autonomy. And given the nature of the US being a nation of immigrants (and it’s sheer size), I think it fits our culture very well.