Should Congress be restructured?

[mal3volent]

Do you agree or disagree that with your House-only solution, she is correct that whomever owns the House are the only ones that create the laws?

There could be other measures utilized or created to prevent that. But at the end of the day it would be up to us to create a political environment in this country that moves away from two party domination. There is no rule that congress has to be split 50/50 or 60/40 at all times.

I think it'd work better if we had a thriving Green Party and a thriving Libertarian party to compete with the Democrats and Republicans. Maybe even a socialist party?

I don't see the benefit of having a Senate , as it exists and functions right now.

Yeah I think it'd be way better to elect our presidents on a popular vote and have one legislative house. With more nuanced and varied political leaders that would truly reflect the diversity of the country.

Then you'd have a system where the different factions could build coalitions if need be, and compromise in a more meaningful and productive way.

 

[JessFR]

I just woke up (yes I often check bl just after waking up ) so I'm not gonna try and get into a big thing about what's fair and what's not with regards to the senate right this sec.

But I do wanna quickly address the comments about my initial remark. That I suspected that if different parties were in power the argument might be different.

I didn't see exactly how this thread started (apart from recalling that it spun out of the trump thread}, I came in a little late. So, not having the wider context, and given the recent impeachment activity in which the senate could potentially undo an attempt to get rid of trump. And given my recollection that this discussion started on the trump thread.

I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect in light of that that someone wanting to get rid of the senate in the current political climate might be motivated by their role in the current political scandel. Which I feel would be a short sighted position were that the motivation.

That's why I said I had a feeling it might be the case rather than anything more direct, it was a suspicion born of circumstance.

But @mal3volent ,if you say that's not the case, I'm happy to accept that it's not the case and move on. I only mentioned it because it seemed quite plausible at the time.

 

[mal3volent]

I think maybe it says more about your own political inclination than mine. You are a centrist/moderate type right? It would make sense that you are hypersensitive to partisanship.

I definitely lean hard left but I have never identified as a Democrat. They are part of the problem in my eyes. We will never eliminate political parties unfortunately. I think a good option would be to have more of them even though that sounds counterproductive. If we had four or five legitimate parties it would reduce the tribalism I assume you hate.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

I don't see the benefit of having a Senate , as it exists and functions right now.

This is what I've taken your point as all along. I apologize for the history review when your point is >RIGHT NOW< it doesn't make sense to you.

But at the end of the day it would be up to us to create a political environment in this country that moves away from two party domination. There is no rule that congress has to be split 50/50 or 60/40 at all times.

I think it'd work better if we had a thriving Green Party and a thriving Libertarian party to compete with the Democrats and Republicans. Maybe even a socialist party?

...

With more nuanced and varied political leaders that would truly reflect the diversity of the country.

Then you'd have a system where the different factions could build coalitions if need be, and compromise in a more meaningful and productive way.

I would enjoy following this part, but it would likely be another thread about our 2-party system in general. Personally, I *HATE* the current 2-party and wish there were more viable parties so we WOULD have a more diverse representation. Right now, it seems the two behemoth parties squeeze out any competition (Hi Tea Party! Bye Tea Party!) so it is difficult for me to imagine a society where we could get to multiple parties. I see a huge issue trying to break either party apart at this point, though the Dems may fracture on their own shortly....maybe then we could have 3 parties. But currently the two work effectively to prevent any further competition, and work primarily in the interest of their party over their constituents, IMO. The party fights to stay alive, at times stepping on those who put them in office. If only one were kept intact and the other splintered to better represent the population...the remaining giant would squash all others, perhaps leaving them in existence in name but without any real power - it's just not how they are wired.

I'm getting on a soapbox. I'll leave it as "I do not think it would work unless we were able to destroy BOTH parties and have a mechanism to prevent ANY party from dominating" (though I can't imagine what they may be). I'll add that the reason I could see exploring this discussion is that I would LOVE to see it. I believe some European governments deal with a smattering of various political groups who have to work together. I barely pay enough attention to US politics, and that is only recent, so I would love to hear from others on how well-poorly such a fragmented political grouping works in their countries.

 

[JessFR]

I think maybe it says more about your own political inclination than mine. You are a centrist/moderate type right? It would make sense that you are hypersensitive to partisanship.

You know that's a really good point. My main concern about getting rid of the senate though, is preventing the concentration of power.

Right now, for one group to have total control, they need control of both the house and the senate. If we had a unicameral system, we would lose that.

And you're right, I'm in the middle, I don't want either party getting power in the long term. I'm just as opposed to prolonged Democratic control as prolonged republican.

And the bicameral system usually makes it difficult for the same party to be in power in both chambers at once.

I can accept that the senate isn't a fair reflection of how America currently sees itself. By which I mean as opposed to the reasons it became like this, with people citizens of their state first.

You said you aren't interested in why it's like this, and that's fair enough.

Honestly, there's probably lots of changes we could make to how government works that would make it fairer or better, in light of how the world has changed since these systems started.

It's just not very feasible to do so. Noone in power wants to do much to change the system that got them into power.

I could support a hypothetical system where we don't have the senate the way it is today. But I'd never support a unicameral system.

In fact my ideas for changing the senate would probably make it less fair.

Which is something we likely differ about. I don't want a pure democracy. I don't trust pure democracy.

I don't want to lose democracy either, but just like my feelings towards the legislative branch, I want to keep power separated and checked, so no current group or person has all the power at once.