The Senate should be abolished. The existence of 2 legislative chambers, both of which need to approve each piece of legislation, is an obvious flaw that leads to deadlock and cynicism about “government not working” (rightfully so), and often lets both parties plausibly blame the other. No rational consensus algorithm involves an even number of peers.
Of course, the Senate will never be abolished, because doing so would require 2/3 of the Senate to approve its own abolition, which no rational Senator would vote for. So we’ll just have to wait for the US government lose a war to a foreign adversary or some sort of revolution.
There’s an advantage to a “reactive body” and a “contemplative body” to have short term advocating for your direct constituents and a mediating push for better longer term results, but not the way we do it.
Giving votes to land is foolish.
Keep the two houses, but apportion senators by population as well.
The Senate should be abolished. The existence of 2 legislative chambers, both of which need to approve each piece of legislation, is an obvious flaw that leads to deadlock and cynicism about “government not working” (rightfully so), and often lets both parties plausibly blame the other. No rational consensus algorithm involves an even number of peers.
Of course, the Senate will never be abolished, because doing so would require 2/3 of the Senate to approve its own abolition, which no rational Senator would vote for. So we’ll just have to wait for the US government lose a war to a foreign adversary or some sort of revolution.
The senate is there so the rich only have to bribe as few people as possible.
There’s an advantage to a “reactive body” and a “contemplative body” to have short term advocating for your direct constituents and a mediating push for better longer term results, but not the way we do it.
Giving votes to land is foolish.
Keep the two houses, but apportion senators by population as well.