re: #150 Lidane

If we didn’t have a Senate, we’d still be in the middle of a government shutdown right now.

re: #154 Lidane

Also, without a Senate right now, the ACA would’ve been repealed, Obama would’ve been impeached for whatever trumped up reason (BENGHAZI! Nirth certifkit! Eleventy!) and we’d be well on our way to being a Third World nation.

These are counterfactuals so divorced from history that it’s essentially impossible to propose a counterargument. That being said: I have it on reliable authority that if we didn’t have a Senate we would each be wearing rocket boots and commuting to work on the moon every day!

The 2-seat-per-state Senate is pointless, but the real problem is the gerrymandering of House seats and the malapportionment of those seats among the states, and the refusal of the House to expand to stay representative of the nation as a whole) that leads to more (D) votes being cast returning more (R) house members. (Side note: where do you hear about this in the oh-so-liberal media? This is, or should be, a scandal and yet no one reports it so no one cares. Makes me goddamn sick.)

Maybe a select committee of an actually representative House (one that’s scaled to meet the size of the population: maybe one per 500k citizens (divided up according to actual population, minimum of 1 per state), resize to occur at time of apportionment) could be formed for the advise and consent and treaty functions of the Senate? I agree with the founders at that a large-body legislature is probably not a good way to approve judges.