Imagine that you have a nation that is one thousand square miles in size. Ninety percent of the nation is taken up by a city of ten million people. The other ten percent is empty desert and wilderness, populated only by a grizzled hermit named Jim. Tasked with inventing a representative political system for this country, you say, “Well, looks like there are two areas here, so I’ll draw a line between the city and Jim’s land, and I’ll give each an equal number of representatives. When the ten million city people want something they will have to negotiate with Jim, who has a power equal to all of them combined.”
Stupid, right? Yes. This is the United States Senate. This is quite literally the design of the U.S. Senate…
Better just to abolish it.
The Senate was founded in notions about the “greatness” of Ancient Rome, which was a plutocratic Republic run by the aristocracy. They allowed plebeians later on, which at one point had some influence, but that was always secondary to the interests of the aristocracy.
Makes perfect sense if you look at who the USA was founded for: White, male, Puritan, property-owning slave masters and merchants.
Abolish aristocratic rule all together.
No. The point is to give participation to a) the people on a federal level, I.e. the House of Representatives, and b) the states, especially with regards to laws that directly effects the states, I.e. the Senate.
These are two different kinds of representation and are important to strike a balance between State and Federal powers.
Abolishing the Senate would disempower the states and turn the US into a centrally managed government without any input or representation on the state level.
The current method of having two senators per state (or two electors per state extra for the presidential election) is crap. On that behalf I am with you. But the bicameral system as such is important, and should be fixed instead of abolished.
I don’t know how you get his interpretation. Abolishing the senate puts proportional representation towards majority will, which is true democracy. That along with abolishing the electoral college. It doesn’t centralize anything in and of itself. It puts power where it’s supposed to be, in collective body of the voters. Now if the will of voters is to centralize power, so be it. That’s democracy.
Other countries have this sort of direct democratic parliamentary system. Why does the USA always need to be the special snowflake of the world stage? Answer: it’s to mantain the power of the Epstein class and maintain the agenda of economic imperialism.
The classic democracy cures all vs democracy doesn’t fix everything. You both are right. (One of those rights has a different meaning though)
The gets into an interesting debate. What if the majority of voters are subject to self-destructive propaganda?
The framers of the US constitution were fearful of “mob rule.”
Well, I’d argue with our current republic, we’re being ruled by a minority opinion based in self-destructive propaganda. So those who ascribe to majority belief get dragged in the opposite direction of progress by the minority.
Direct democracy puts the burden of proof on the minority who disagrees with majority of opinion. If the MAGA platform is so great, then the minority need to convince the majority that disagree with them that it’s the way to go.