What If The House Could Ignore The Senate?

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,954
Points
333
Location
United States
As it stands right now, and correct me if I'm wrong, in order to get a bill through Congress it needs to pass through both houses. What if we made it so that bills originating in the House of Representatives that got 60% support in the House, were able to bypass Senate approval entirely and get sent directly to the President?

I think this would solve the current problem of small states having too much power in Congress, by diminishing the power of the Senate.

I think this combined with expanding the House would go a long way to fixing American democracy. What do you think?
 

keenobserver

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Posts
8,550
Media
0
Likes
13,945
Points
433
Location
east coast usa
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
As it stands right now, and correct me if I'm wrong, in order to get a bill through Congress it needs to pass through both houses. What if we made it so that bills originating in the House of Representatives that got 60% support in the House, were able to bypass Senate approval entirely and get sent directly to the President?

I think this would solve the current problem of small states having too much power in Congress, by diminishing the power of the Senate.

I think this combined with expanding the House would go a long way to fixing American democracy. What do you think?

I'm not a fan of the way things are right now - obviously. However the problem is partisan divide is more entrenched than ever. People are not compromising. Compromise was the critical component to function. This is why there are two legislative bodies that have to work together, and why one, the Senate moves slowly, by design - to tame the people's house - i.e. - the mob.

As @Industrialsize noted we would need an amendment to do this - probably more than one and they are hard to pass, even for 'good ideas.' Frankly the idea of a constitutional convention scares the hell out of me with lobbyists running wild and writing a new constitution for the assembled idiots.

I don't think the proposal works because it does not change the underlying condition of entrenched partisan positions. A like the idea about more representatives so each district can be better represented, but given gerrymandering is legal even that is fraught with problems. Small states will not surrender their outsized influence. This is a key issue with eliminating the electoral college. It was a key promise is getting the states to agree to form a nation.

Change has to start with votes saying - 'enough of these assholes.' and voting the out - not imposed term limits for Congress, change mandated by voters. Until we offer voters in Kentucky a better choice than Mitch we are going to stay locked. Until we reach that rare point where people say, "I think (fill in the blank) has to go, even though I voted for him in the past" we're not going to see change.

This election offers some hope there, with the Senate. Until GOP senators are replaced because voters want change, we're not moving forward. Educating voters to change would be easier (but not easy) than an amendment and a leap away from a system that has been critical for our survival, even as that system hurts us now.

When Yang ran for office on UBI most people were skeptical. As people at least slowly looked at it, the idea gained some support. Still - it is a big leap for s country that hates to mandate insurance for everyone. Now, after the pandemic hits and incomes are collapsed by "the flu" I'll bet more people are open to working with that idea now that they see how companies and corporate interests have been bailed at the expense of workers.

I'm not sure a system change is needed or would work, as proposed in the OP, but if we can get voters to change the Senate in a wave, we might see progress. We have to bring back compromise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deleted15807

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,954
Points
333
Location
United States
I'm not a fan of the way things are right now - obviously. However the problem is partisan divide is more entrenched than ever. People are not compromising. Compromise was the critical component to function. This is why there are two legislative bodies that have to work together, and why one, the Senate moves slowly, by design - to tame the people's house - i.e. - the mob.

As @Industrialsize noted we would need an amendment to do this - probably more than one and they are hard to pass, even for 'good ideas.' Frankly the idea of a constitutional convention scares the hell out of me with lobbyists running wild and writing a new constitution for the assembled idiots.

I don't think the proposal works because it does not change the underlying condition of entrenched partisan positions. A like the idea about more representatives so each district can be better represented, but given gerrymandering is legal even that is fraught with problems. Small states will not surrender their outsized influence. This is a key issue with eliminating the electoral college. It was a key promise is getting the states to agree to form a nation.

Change has to start with votes saying - 'enough of these assholes.' and voting the out - not imposed term limits for Congress, change mandated by voters. Until we offer voters in Kentucky a better choice than Mitch we are going to stay locked. Until we reach that rare point where people say, "I think (fill in the blank) has to go, even though I voted for him in the past" we're not going to see change.

This election offers some hope there, with the Senate. Until GOP senators are replaced because voters want change, we're not moving forward. Educating voters to change would be easier (but not easy) than an amendment and a leap away from a system that has been critical for our survival, even as that system hurts us now.

When Yang ran for office on UBI most people were skeptical. As people at least slowly looked at it, the idea gained some support. Still - it is a big leap for s country that hates to mandate insurance for everyone. Now, after the pandemic hits and incomes are collapsed by "the flu" I'll bet more people are open to working with that idea now that they see how companies and corporate interests have been bailed at the expense of workers.

I'm not sure a system change is needed or would work, as proposed in the OP, but if we can get voters to change the Senate in a wave, we might see progress. We have to bring back compromise.

I think part of the reason why compromise is so hard. nowadays is because we've given so much power to rural voters. They are the most hardcore conservatives and due to the way Congress is set up each rural voter's vote is worth significantly more than an urban voter's. If you got rid of that power imbalance, I think Congress would start functioning much better.
 

keenobserver

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Posts
8,550
Media
0
Likes
13,945
Points
433
Location
east coast usa
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I think part of the reason why compromise is so hard. nowadays is because we've given so much power to rural voters. They are the most hardcore conservatives and due to the way Congress is set up each rural voter's vote is worth significantly more than an urban voter's. If you got rid of that power imbalance, I think Congress would start functioning much better.

I agree that rural voters have a political power that is disproportionate to their size, but compromise is a two way street. Too often Democrats treat rural areas as fly over places and fail to reach out to those areas and address their needs - leaving them in the embrace of the GOP. Unfortunately the power imbalance was intended in order to bring in the smaller states and it is in our DNA, so changing that will be near impossible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: twoton

JulieInNaplesFL

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Posts
2,651
Media
7
Likes
2,421
Points
543
Location
Naples/ FtMyers Florida
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
I actually don't have an issue with the electoral college.

My apologies, I guess I assume your statement wrong. How do you figure that the rural voters has more than power urban voters? If it wasn't for the electoral college the big cities would elect the President. I don't want NYC and LA dictating my President.
 

Tight_N_Juicy

Mythical Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Posts
18,266
Media
138
Likes
63,587
Points
508
Location
U.S.A.
Verification
View
Sexuality
Pansexual
Gender
Female
My apologies, I guess I assume your statement wrong. How do you figure that the rural voters has more than power urban voters? If it wasn't for the electoral college the big cities would elect the President. I don't want NYC and LA dictating my President.

Anyone can make the same argument about rural voters. I don't even live in the city, but the thought of a bunch of country-bumpkins having more power voting (and the electoral college does give them more of a voice, that's just reality) than me just because they live in "the heartland" or whatever the fuck pisses me off. Their vote matters as much as mine. Which matters as much as a city dweller.

Get rid of the electoral college, and EVERYONE'S vote matters just as much as everyone else's.
 

bar4doug

Loved Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Posts
1,555
Media
0
Likes
625
Points
333
Location
United States
Gender
Male
As it stands right now, and correct me if I'm wrong, in order to get a bill through Congress it needs to pass through both houses. What if we made it so that bills originating in the House of Representatives that got 60% support in the House, were able to bypass Senate approval entirely and get sent directly to the President?

I think this would solve the current problem of small states having too much power in Congress, by diminishing the power of the Senate.

I think this combined with expanding the House would go a long way to fixing American democracy. What do you think?

Actually it would make it easier for the mob to rule. And why would you want that?

The United States is a not a democracy. It is a republic.

The United States Constitution limits the powers of the federal government. If the federal government is not delegated the power, it resides with the people or the states.

As originally written, the public didn't elect their Senators. Senators were elected by State Legislatures. This was to allow each individual state government a say in federal policy. The people elected members of the House, and the states elected Senators.

I personally wish the 17th Amendment were repealed. The States themselves should have a say in what the federal government forces them to do. Its passage unbalanced the scale; State governments have no way to check the power of the federal government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flynn

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,954
Points
333
Location
United States
Actually it would make it easier for the mob to rule. And why would you want that?

The United States is a not a democracy. It is a republic.

The United States Constitution limits the powers of the federal government. If the federal government is not delegated the power, it resides with the people or the states.

As originally written, the public didn't elect their Senators. Senators were elected by State Legislatures. This was to allow each individual state government a say in federal policy. The people elected members of the House, and the states elected Senators.

I personally wish the 17th Amendment were repealed. The States themselves should have a say in what the federal government forces them to do. Its passage unbalanced the scale; State governments have no way to check the power of the federal government.

Local politicians are not some separate group who need to be represented in the Federal government.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,757
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male

Tight_N_Juicy

Mythical Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Posts
18,266
Media
138
Likes
63,587
Points
508
Location
U.S.A.
Verification
View
Sexuality
Pansexual
Gender
Female
I agree that rural voters have a political power that is disproportionate to their size, but compromise is a two way street. Too often Democrats treat rural areas as fly over places and fail to reach out to those areas and address their needs - leaving them in the embrace of the GOP. Unfortunately the power imbalance was intended in order to bring in the smaller states and it is in our DNA, so changing that will be near impossible.

Compromise hasn't been "two way" my entire lifetime. Republicans block everything Dems try to pass unless it becomes a complete giveaway to the wealthy. Our last governor was a republican, she was a greedy asshole who broke laws and used her constituents to benefit personally without helping the people in our "fly over state". Now we have a Democrat, and she doesn't treat our state like a pitstop, and she isn't solely focused on the urban areas of the state. The people voted her in, so it seems (anecdotally) that it isn't really so much about Dems treating mid-murrica like it doesn't matter. Because that's not the case.

I don't know how people in the middle of the country (which includes me, I'm in NM) figure that Republicans have their interests in mind, especially fuckin Trump. He's a "billionaire" who grew up a city boy, HE considers middle America to be "fly over" country but he won the presidency because of the support he gained in those areas he has hated and dismissed literally his whole life. They fall for the pandering and really I don't feel bad for uninformed people who think with their emotions. They got what they paid for. Problem is, the majority of the country didn't buy that shit, we just got stuck with it because of the electoral college.

I say do away with the electoral college. It's outdated, it gives smaller populations more power rather than letting Everyone have a voice watch is equal to everyone else's.
 

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,954
Points
333
Location
United States
Compromise hasn't been "two way" my entire lifetime. Republicans block everything Dems try to pass unless it becomes a complete giveaway to the wealthy. Our last governor was a republican, she was a greedy asshole who broke laws and used her constituents to benefit personally without helping the people in our "fly over state". Now we have a Democrat, and she doesn't treat our state like a pitstop, and she isn't solely focused on the urban areas of the state. The people voted her in, so it seems (anecdotally) that it isn't really so much about Dems treating mid-murrica like it doesn't matter. Because that's not the case.

I don't know how people in the middle of the country (which includes me, I'm in NM) figure that Republicans have their interests in mind, especially fuckin Trump. He's a "billionaire" who grew up a city boy, HE considers middle America to be "fly over" country but he won the presidency because of the support he gained in those areas he has hated and dismissed literally his whole life. They fall for the pandering and really I don't feel bad for uninformed people who think with their emotions. They got what they paid for. Problem is, the majority of the country didn't buy that shit, we just got stuck with it because of the electoral college.

I say do away with the electoral college. It's outdated, it gives smaller populations more power rather than letting Everyone have a voice watch is equal to everyone else's.

In terms of getting stuff done, eliminating the electoral college wouldn't change anything. In order to have real change Congress would have to be altered on some level. I like my idea because it is a minor change, but allows for more to get done while still protecting smaller states.
 

Tight_N_Juicy

Mythical Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Posts
18,266
Media
138
Likes
63,587
Points
508
Location
U.S.A.
Verification
View
Sexuality
Pansexual
Gender
Female
In terms of getting stuff done, eliminating the electoral college wouldn't change anything. In order to have real change Congress would have to be altered on some level. I like my idea because it is a minor change, but allows for more to get done while still protecting smaller states.

I don't mean to derail the thread, I was just kinda going on a tangent about the EC.

My bad. This thread isn't about the electoral college, I'll see myself out.
 

keenobserver

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Posts
8,550
Media
0
Likes
13,945
Points
433
Location
east coast usa
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Compromise hasn't been "two way" my entire lifetime. Republicans block everything Dems try to pass unless it becomes a complete giveaway to the wealthy. Our last governor was a republican, she was a greedy asshole who broke laws and used her constituents to benefit personally without helping the people in our "fly over state". Now we have a Democrat, and she doesn't treat our state like a pitstop, and she isn't solely focused on the urban areas of the state. The people voted her in, so it seems (anecdotally) that it isn't really so much about Dems treating mid-murrica like it doesn't matter. Because that's not the case.

I don't know how people in the middle of the country (which includes me, I'm in NM) figure that Republicans have their interests in mind, especially fuckin Trump. He's a "billionaire" who grew up a city boy, HE considers middle America to be "fly over" country but he won the presidency because of the support he gained in those areas he has hated and dismissed literally his whole life. They fall for the pandering and really I don't feel bad for uninformed people who think with their emotions. They got what they paid for. Problem is, the majority of the country didn't buy that shit, we just got stuck with it because of the electoral college.

I say do away with the electoral college. It's outdated, it gives smaller populations more power rather than letting Everyone have a voice watch is equal to everyone else's.

I agree with what you are saying, I'd love to ditch the EC, but I see no way it can happen - ever. The Constitution would need to be amended but you could not get enough small states to ratify it. States will not cede that power - just because it gives them extra influence.
In terms of getting stuff done, eliminating the electoral college wouldn't change anything. In order to have real change Congress would have to be altered on some level. I like my idea because it is a minor change, but allows for more to get done while still protecting smaller states.

I don't see your proposal protecting smaller states - you're increasing representation in more dense areas, even if you don't reduce it smaller areas there is still an erosion of the small states influence and power. The EC is not the topic of the thread, but it is very much related. Getting rid of the Senate, for whatever reason is not minor.
 

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,954
Points
333
Location
United States
I agree with what you are saying, I'd love to ditch the EC, but I see no way it can happen - ever. The Constitution would need to be amended but you could not get enough small states to ratify it. States will not cede that power - just because it gives them extra influence.


I don't see your proposal protecting smaller states - you're increasing representation in more dense areas, even if you don't reduce it smaller areas there is still an erosion of the small states influence and power. The EC is not the topic of the thread, but it is very much related. Getting rid of the Senate, for whatever reason is not minor.

I never said to get rid of Senate. The house would just be able to bypass the Senate if a significant majority were in support of some piece of legislation.

The legislation would still have to be signed by the President and the procedure to override the veto would remain the same, so smaller states would remain safe.