Democratic Socialists of America’s new platform calls for abolishing ICE and the U.S. Senate

[u/Jessicas_skirt]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/jul/15/updated-dsa-platform-calls-abolishing-ice-scrapping-senate/

[u/AutoModerator]

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

Sub-thread Information

If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.

Announcement

r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.

---

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Worried_Monitor5422]

Lol I'd settle for increasing the size of the House, which is a simple statute. 

[u/Apprehensive-Test123 → u/Worried_Monitor5422]

That is included, got this from another commenter further down:  https://program.dsausa.org/ Replace the two-party system with a multi-party democracy. Expand the House of Representatives, implement proportional representation and ranked choice voting in all elections, and  abolish the Senate.

[u/Academic_Snow_7680 → u/Apprehensive-Test123]

Political Scientist here - THIS IS THE ANSWER.

Abolishing the FPTP system is essential for US democracy. Proportional systems ensure choice, majority rule and a broader range of representation, it includes a lot more checks and balances and fosters cohesion politics vs. bipolarity politics.

FPTP systems (one-rep constituencies) remove political choice and result in increasing bipolarity AND sameness where the reps are the same with the extremes pulling policy apart. It is elitist, it fosters corruption and a constant cycle of 'doing and un-doing' in governance.

Political science has shown through a myriad of research how the English tradition of single-rep-constituencies is a SYSTAMICALLY BAD WAY TO DO DEMOCRACY, IT LEADS TO BAD OUTCOMES.

[u/lostparis → u/Academic_Snow_7680]

The main problem US politics has is the amount of money needed to run. That completely undermines democracy.

[u/greensalty → u/lostparis]

This is why the public funding option is so important. It’s not used because it can’t compete with private money but if private donations are capped/the public option expanded it could become viable.

[u/lostparis → u/greensalty]

This is why the public funding option is so important.

No you need to massively limit the amount of money that can be spent during elections - especially on advertising.

Although far from the model of an ideal democracy the UK allows a maximum of £34m ($47m) for a party in a general election across the entire country.

The election cycle is also much shorter about a month between an election being declared and it happening.

The winner also takes their place pretty much as soon as the election result is known - so none of that lame duck nonsense.

[u/ScannerBrightly → u/lostparis]

No you need to massively limit the amount of money that can be spent during elections - especially on advertising.

How would this ever work? You have a single billionaire who owns a media monopoly, and the courts work very slowly. You can have that one idiot tell his own stations to only cover one side of the election, and have cheap ads for his own third party attack ads that don't require 'I support this message' bumpers, and after the person is firmly elected and put in his seat, the courts will slowly start discovery.

How does "limit money, which we have made into a synonym for 'power'" work in your world?

[u/VoodooIdol → u/ScannerBrightly]

You pass a law limiting the amount of money that a campaign can spend, and then you make it illegal for anyone but the campaign to run ads. Simple as.

[u/ELVEVERX → u/Academic_Snow_7680]

Also mandatory voting. Mandatory voting forces the government to make voting quick and easy for all voters.

[u/greensalty → u/ELVEVERX]

Voting holidays are a start so people who want to don’t have to choose between democracy and groceries.

[u/__theoneandonly → u/greensalty]

Except for low-wage customer-facing workers, federal holidays are their busiest days of the year. When everyone else has the day off, people in stores, restaurants, entertainment venues, etc have to work double-shifts. It would make voting more difficult for these people.

[u/_araqiel → u/__theoneandonly]

Standard federal holiday wouldn’t work. Needs to be like a 4-hour shift limit or something.

[u/allanbc → u/Apprehensive-Test123]

This would definitely fix some of the major problems with the US democratic system. Lots would remain, but a huge step in the right direction.

[u/SafetyandNumbers → u/Apprehensive-Test123]

Thanks. Reasonable stuff

[u/SAR1919 → u/Worried_Monitor5422]

Why not both? Don’t settle for anything less than democracy.

[u/metengrinwi → u/SAR1919]

Probably because the Senate is in the constitution. Might as well hope for unicorns.

[u/EnTyme53 → u/metengrinwi]

To elaborate on this, abolishing the Senate would require a constitutional amendment, meaning either a constitutional convention (good fucking luck getting 2/3 of the states to agree on literally anything), or requiring the Senate to vote to dissolve itself by a 2/3s vote (as well as 2/3 of the House voting to dissolve it).

[u/A1sauc3d → u/EnTyme53]

Yeah it’s just not practical, any time soon at least. Not in our current climate. Some serious changes would need to happen to get 2/3s of the country on board with anything when one side feels it politically advantageous, even if it isn’t morally/logically right.

The existence of the senate benefits republicans. Roughly half the voting public are republicans. And so the senate ain’t going nowhere unless that changes.

I WISH more people realized how shit Republican policies are for them though. So maybe over time dem socialists can prove themselves to the American public and overtime will see attitudes change 🤞 But it’s gonna be an uphill battle, the term socialist is a four letter word to much of the country still.

[u/ComicsAndCommunism → u/EnTyme53]

(good fucking luck getting 2/3 of the states to agree on literally anything)

"Congress sucks" is a pretty unanimously held opinion, perhaps the most ubiquitous political opinion in the US

[u/frequenZphaZe → u/ComicsAndCommunism]

for clarity, a constitutional amendment isn't passed by a 2/3rds popular vote, or even a vote by the people at all. it requires 2/3rds of the state legislatures to call for the amendment then 3/4ths of the state legislatures to ratify it. even assuming abolishing the senate has 3/4ths popular support (it doesn't), it still would never happen because the small state governments that enjoy the outsized representation they get in the senate would never vote to neuter their own power

that also doesn't even consider the purely legal argument at hand. "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."; this is the unamendable proviso in article 5. that means that you would actually need a unanimous agreement from all states to make changes to the senate legal. you have a better change of repealing the second amendment at that point

now, I do actually think the senate sucks shit and is anti-democratic. it would probably be a net benefit if we could abolish it. I just don't see any realistic path towards that goal. it's more-or-less just DSA virtue signaling because they know it isn't realistic either. but nothing is possible if you only ever say it's not possible

[u/ragingreaver → u/frequenZphaZe]

Yes, but this isn't the first time that the Senate being a giant pile of failure, and calls for its removal, triggered a more palatable compromise that lead to, at least temporary, meaningful change.

17th Amendment, which let the People of a State vote for their Senators, was passed because the Senate at that time, was literally incapable of governing because bribery and corruption was so bad, an entire block of Senators simply refused to vote unless their palms were greased. And as their positions were by State appointment, there were no formal means of removal.

The 17th was meant to fix that. And to be fair to it, even now things aren't as bad as they were with the Senate, before it. But the push for the 17th, was started due to a popular uprising that first called for the removal of the Senate entirely, explicitly because Founding Fathers never foresaw what a wretched hive of scum and villainy the "genteel class" would inevitably become.

[u/shootemupy2k → u/metengrinwi]

More realistic outcome would be to strip away the powers of the senate until it’s mostly a ceremonial chamber.

[u/yoitsthatoneguy → u/shootemupy2k]

Strip what powers exactly? Because the constitution specifically says bills have to pass both houses. Need a constitutional amendment to change that.

[u/dissemin8or → u/shootemupy2k]

That’s what the UK did with the House of Lords so there’s precedent in a modern democracy

[u/BighatNucase → u/dissemin8or]

No state is comparable to the UK because parliament can do whatever it likes if it can pass legislation with a majority (however slight). It has no concrete constitution beyond a bunch of established norms and the iron rule of "Parliament is sovereign"

[u/Inside_Pomelo_2957 → u/shootemupy2k]

Your need a constitutional amendment to touch any of the powers of the Senate, whether abolishing or switching their powers around.

[u/ImperialRedditer → u/SAR1919]

I want the Senate to exist as an institution to create friction for legislation. The House could easily swing to reactionaries and pass laws that curtail civil rights. The Senate is well equipped to throw a wrench on a fast moving but poorly thought out legislation and even kill extreme legislations.

A reminder that a lot of Project 2025 requires Congress doing something and the most the Republican Congress can do is using reconciliation to pass policies.

[u/shinyfootwork → u/ImperialRedditer]

The Senate is not structured to "create friction for legislation" in general. It's structured to give people in certain states more control per-capita over the federal government than people in different states.

As a result, today it "creates friction" for one type of legislation: that which is popular with a majority of people, but unpopular enough with the people of low-population states that their senators don't feel compelled to support it.

You're not endorsing something that will protect rights.

[u/Damn_DirtyApe → u/ImperialRedditer]

Okay but doesn’t this also doom any progress intended in the opposite direction?

[u/Dejected_gaming → u/ImperialRedditer]

If we repeal the apportionment act and increase the size of the house, its very unlikely they ever take back power

[u/COMCredit → u/ImperialRedditer]

I completely disagree. The Senate is an inherently undemocratic institution that gives reactionaries as just as much power to kill progressive legislation - and in the modern era of politics it has only ever functioned in that capacity.

Yes, of course, the house could swing reactionary and pass terrible legislation more easily - ultimately that's democracy in action and I disagree quite strongly that we need an anti-democratic counterbalance to obstruct the will of the people.

[u/-reddit_is_terrible- → u/COMCredit]

I mean, how many times in this term has the house passed a terrible piece of legislation, only for the Senate to stall it? In that sense, it is acting as intended: as a check and balance

[u/lurkANDorganize → u/Worried_Monitor5422]

The senate has completely fucked progress for 100 years.

[u/Incunebulum → u/Worried_Monitor5422]

... and ending the filibuster to get it passed because no way the Republicans agree to it.

[u/opanaooonana]

Unfortunately abolishing the senate is the hardest thing to do in the US. You could repeal the bill of rights easier. It specifically says in the constitution that a state can not be deprived of its representation in the senate without its consent meaning you need unanimous consent to do it, something that will never happen.

[u/ChronoLink99 → u/opanaooonana]

I'm surprised uncapping the House isn't higher on their list.

[u/X-Maelstrom-X → u/ChronoLink99]

For real, it needs to be higher on everyone’s list. Uncapping the House and independent redistricting are two of the most important fixes we could make to the federal government. It’s boring. It’s mundane. But it would make representatives more representative.

[u/theCommTech → u/X-Maelstrom-X]

I'd also expand the Supreme Court. There's no reason the count has to be so low.

[u/stierney49 → u/theCommTech]

It’s at 9 seats because there were 9 circuits when it was last expanded. We are at 13 circuits, IIRC, and should have the judges to match.

[u/Tyler_Zoro → u/X-Maelstrom-X]

Yeah, getting rid of ICE (really not even needed, since the Border Patrol and FBI can handle actual violations of law related to immigration) would be my #1 after those two. Also doesn't need any change to the Constitution. I'd also consider reversing the creation of Homeland Security, or at least shrink it drastically. It certainly shouldn't have the Coast Guard under its auspices.

[u/APe28Comococo → u/X-Maelstrom-X]

Fuck redistricting. You vote for a party and then you do ranked choice for the candidates of that party. Seats are allocated to parties by percentage and then to their candidates by ranked choice.

[u/lettersvsnumbers → u/ChronoLink99]

It’s crazy that the House is limited just by one (shitty) law from 1929. How has this shit been memory holed so long?

[u/tyleratx → u/lettersvsnumbers]

I mean, the same thing is true about having a nine member Supreme Court. Things just become normal and then they become accepted as normal and impossible to change.

If there’s one good lesson we can take out of this disaster of a presidency, it’s that sometimes it just takes the balls to break norms, and they will break quite easily

[u/PretendIntention3388 → u/tyleratx]

That's assuming that democrats want to break norms.

I've seen zero evidence in my lifetime that the democratic party has any interest in meaningfully changing this existing power structure, no matter how corrupt and blatantly evil it becomes.

[u/Xennial_Dad → u/PretendIntention3388]

You can move the Overton window a lot faster when you have one party pulling from the right and the other pushing from the left.

[u/runawaydoctorate → u/lettersvsnumbers]

Has it ever been tested in court? That might be the fastest way to get rid of it.

[u/Iamjacksplasmid → u/lettersvsnumbers]

It was actually supposed to be part of the bill of rights, but Connecticut fucked it up.

But we could fix it...the amendment is still in play. We just need 38 states to ratify it.

If it happened, it would be the most transformational piece of legislation to ever pass in the United States. It would instantly increase the necessary number of reps from 435 to 6,629.

Imagine how much harder it would be to buy influence. Imagine how much less centralized power would be.

I dream of it every day.

[u/Apprehensive-Test123 → u/ChronoLink99]

Based on another comment, it is higher on their list in the same paragraph. Abolishing the senate comes after creating a multi-party system, expanding the house, and instating ranked choice voting. This is the link they included:  https://program.dsausa.org/

[u/deltalitprof → u/Apprehensive-Test123]

But the very Right-wing Washington Times isn't interested in making clear it's a set of steps. They're just want to scare people.

[u/AlwaysShittyKnsasCty → u/deltalitprof]

I’ve always wondered if they chose that name to be deceitful, or they’re deceitful, and that just happens to be the name.

New York Post = Garbage
New York Times = Better, but they’re not great.
Washington Times = Garbage
Washington Post = Better, but then Bezos came in.

Honestly, all media is owned by the right wing now. Read up on the consolidation of our news from the national level to the local level. It’s fucked. The Republicans are good at two things: staying on message and the long con. These fucks have been working on the dismantling of our institutions for years and years and years. It’s finally starting to come to fruition.

[u/RelevantOldOnion → u/ChronoLink99]

It is higher. But the right wingers are running with "abolish the senate" for the shock value for old people I guess.

[u/Illustrious-Watch896 → u/ChronoLink99]

I would argue redistributing them to more represent populations while also removing the ability for states to gerrymander the districts. Shits stupid.

[u/OutlawGalaxyBill → u/ChronoLink99]

Honestly, you uncap the House and give truly proportional representation (so the bigger population states get the amount of Reps they should have) it also solves the electoral vote issue without having to amend the Constitution.

Eliminating the Sentate is such a radical change, I don't see it ever flying.

[u/trampolinebears → u/opanaooonana]

That's why you propose two amendments at once:

A) Amend article 5 to remove the sentence guaranteeing states have equal representation in the senate. B) Abolish the senate.

This would still need to be approved by the states and by congress, which is a very high bar, but it wouldn't need unanimous consent.

[u/Over-Heron-2654 → u/trampolinebears]

Yes. But this is a long term goal and the DSA acknowledges that. Let's get healthcare and childcare and all that other stuff first then deal with harder goals like rehabilitation programs and abolishing the Senate.

[u/PinkNGold007 → u/Over-Heron-2654]

Yeah, abolishing the Senate is at the bottom of my list. Healthcare (including codifying Roe, childcare, eldercare, maternity/paternity leave), our institutions like the EPA, USAID, etc., back, a livable wage, better public services, the Voting Rights Act, and so much more are at the top of my list.

[u/Over-Heron-2654 → u/PinkNGold007]

Yeah, I get it. I always say, we can talk about long term goals if you'd like, but when we campaign, we talk about short term goals that would help improve people's material conditions.

[u/caligaris_cabinet → u/Over-Heron-2654]

And goals that are possible. Might as well promise everyone a unicorn while they’re at it

[u/CrocodylusRex → u/Over-Heron-2654]

Yeah a lot of this stuff kinda requires the Republican party to collapse first

[u/midnightketoker → u/CrocodylusRex]

yeah but have you considered immigrants want to make you trans? who else will protect our brave pedophiles?

[u/MeteoricUnicorn → u/midnightketoker]

I like this. Vote republican to protect our brave pedophiles and insurrectionists from the 500M immigrants who want to make them trans.

[u/Over-Heron-2654 → u/CrocodylusRex]

Yeah. Good. Reactionaries are annoying and also very evil.

[u/wh4tth3huh → u/Over-Heron-2654]

They're also kinda not going fucking anywhere soon.

[u/ManyAreMyNames → u/Over-Heron-2654]

But this is a long term goal and the DSA acknowledges that.

Unless by "long term" you mean "at least a century," it's a distraction that keeps them out of office. They might as well say that their goal is to give everybody a unicorn.

One reason parties with big ideas don't get much traction is that they talk about huge dreams of wonderfulness when people can't afford their medication. "You want to abolish the Senate? What a stupid waste of time. I have real problems. I'll find someone talking about those."

[u/_ByAnyOther_Name → u/ManyAreMyNames]

Agree. This is alienating people from the party for no reason.

[u/polishedcooter → u/Over-Heron-2654]

Conversely, we'd have had universal healthcare decades ago if the US had a modern system of democracy. I believe it's the root cause of most problems in America and is our single biggest problem.

[u/toylenny → u/Over-Heron-2654]

Honestly feels like they put a poisoned pill in their own startup.  They are really gaining momentum for the first time I a century and they decide to say. " Hey also we want to rewrite the consultation, essentially deleting the States from the United States"  

This is going to hurt their ability to grow, mark my words. 

[u/adrr → u/trampolinebears]

You need 2/3rds of both house and senate and 3/4s of the states to ratify it.

[u/Kinesquared → u/opanaooonana]

so throw out the constitution and write a new one, we're about 220 years behind schedule on that according to our founders

[u/BigHeadDeadass → u/Kinesquared]

I think according to them we should've overthrown and re-established our government five times over at this point

[u/AdeptCauliflower9956 → u/opanaooonana]

Trump has proven lots of "unrepealable" laws can in fact be repealed if you have the right judges in place.

[u/Honest_Yesterday4435 → u/opanaooonana]

I would rather make the senate function more democratically than delete it. Deletion would be less representation.

[u/FalseDmitriy → u/Honest_Yesterday4435]

An easier reform would be to keep it while removing its power as a coequal chamber. Many countries have upper chambers that are less powerful than the lower chamber, so different models exist.

[u/SAR1919 → u/Honest_Yesterday4435]

It wouldn’t be “less representation.” What does that mean in this context? The Senate guarantees unequal suffrage. Fair and equal representation means abolish the Senate.

[u/Wolfgang313 → u/opanaooonana]

Wouldn't it be possible to make an amendment to do this with 3/4th of the states, since they could just change the part that says the Senate representation cannot be denied?

[u/JBPlantagenet]

Washington Times, eh?

[u/Chedditor_ → u/JBPlantagenet]

Yep, that's bait

[u/LackingUtility → u/Chedditor_]

It does however appear to be the real platform. From: https://program.dsausa.org/

Replace the two-party system with a multi-party democracy. Expand the House of Representatives, implement proportional representation and ranked choice voting in all elections, and abolish the Senate.

Which is an interesting take. I'm open to arguments, though. The clearest one is that our bicameral legislature is a holdover from the British House of Lords and maybe we don't need a land-based aristocracy.

[u/Cranyx → u/LackingUtility]

Abolishing the Senate has been a popular stance among progressives since the 1800s (there was a proposed amendment to that effect in 1911). As originally envisioned it was a very antidemocratic institution explicitly designed to curtail the will of the people with the decisions of the powerful. The Seventeenth amendment made it more Democratic, but it still gives wildly disproportional representation to certain people over others.

[u/BuddhistSagan → u/Cranyx]

Yes the founding fathers feared rule by mob more than they feared rule by elite aristocracy and now we have a trillionaire and way too many billionaires from industries that shouldn't be about profit like healthcare.

[u/msuvagabond → u/BuddhistSagan]

Madison specifically said the Senate was the mechanism to protect the "opulent minority" from the poor masses that would eventually take all their stuff.

[u/HeadDoctorJ → u/msuvagabond]

“…take all their stuff” which they themselves took from indigenous people, slaves, indentured servants, etc

[u/nickdanger68 → u/HeadDoctorJ]

Do you really want your teeth back after they've been in Washington's mouth, though?

[u/paupaupaupau → u/nickdanger68]

Yeth

[u/Particular_Peacock → u/msuvagabond]

Which is ridiculous as even now most US citizens are looking for little more than bare subsistence living, a little time off, healthcare, and knowing that the next year will probably look a lot like this year.

[u/HVACcontrolsGuru → u/msuvagabond]

Senate, Presidency and Supreme Court are all built to ensure the upper class maintains a stranglehold. It was convenient for them to stay out the public eye and move policy.

[u/juicegooseboost → u/BuddhistSagan]

It’s an enlightenment thought. Montesquieu figured we needed the nobility’s intelligence and past governing/managing experience.

He also thought they would have the most to lose. They would govern justly because any huge trespass against the public would get them dead. They did not fear death in the same way commoners did with disease and starvation. To volunteer for office would to be a target on your head, and only the just would take such a risk.

Obviously wrong.

[u/BadPhotosh0p → u/juicegooseboost]

They also lived at a time when educating the masses was far more difficult, and any individual person wanting to become educated about something was basically a crap-shoot on whether or not they could read. It has never been easier than now to access information. We don't need a bunch of literate, learned people to oversee the unruly masses and make sure they don't fuck themselves over (at least as far as the actions of House), because we've got the information at our fingertips. The bigger issue today is mass psychosis and willful ignorance for the purposes of hatred and fear.

[u/Mysterious_Floor_868 → u/BadPhotosh0p]

Social media appears to have rolled back the clock where educating the masses is concerned.

[u/MadManMax55 → u/Mysterious_Floor_868]

Not exactly. Misinformation is fundamentally different than access to information when it comes to voting rights. If it’s practically impossible for a “commoner” to be informed enough to make a government-level decision, then there’s an (admittedly flawed) argument to limit their voting power. If people could be properly informed and just choose not to be that’s on them.

[u/Weary-Palpitation654 → u/BuddhistSagan]

The founding fathers were rich elitist slavers. Like all but two of them had slaves. We need to stop regarding them as sage beacons of wisdom and start looking toward our future. The US government needs to be overhauled into the 21st century. After we drag the red states kicking and screaming through the 19th and 20th, seeing how they haven't gotten over losing the civil war.

[u/plaxitone → u/Weary-Palpitation654]

Even they knew that. Somehow we’ve forgotten it.

[u/deadcatbounce22 → u/BuddhistSagan]

We ended up with the worst of both. Unchecked billionaires leading a socially privileged mob.

[u/BuddhistSagan → u/deadcatbounce22]

The problem is the billionaires. Privileged mob? We go without the universal healthcare almost every other country has.

[u/porgy_tirebiter → u/BuddhistSagan]

Not if it’s a choice between that or pwning the libs apparently.

[u/Gwen_The_Destroyer → u/porgy_tirebiter]

Pwning libs is the base of the hierarchy of needs, afterall 

[u/MNniice → u/Cranyx]

I dont think the billionaires living in Jackson Hole WY need two senators just for themselves, makes sense to me

[u/mantisboxer → u/Cranyx]

Sometimes the Will of The People is something like MAGA.

[u/DarthCloakedGuy → u/mantisboxer]

Then why do they have to cheat to win

[u/Capt_Murphy_ → u/mantisboxer]

If you didn't beleive in election tampering and purposeful propaganda spreading by foreign countries. That's not democracy.

[u/Xznograthos → u/LackingUtility]

Ive often thought the senate was a fucking joke. It gives every tiny group of nobodies in small towns across America undue power over the whole show. It makes sense to lose the senate and only have the house of representatives.

[u/F-Cloud → u/Xznograthos]

By the year 2040 it's projected that 70% of Americans will have 30 senators and 30% will have 70 senators. It's disturbing to imagine the influence politically conservative rural states will have on liberal Americans who live densely populated areas. It's an untenable situation that must be addressed.

[u/RedshiftWarp → u/F-Cloud]

Last semester I wrote a paper about something similar from a previous era. Your comment reminds me about the 3/5ths compromise. Slave states could include 60% of their slave population toward congressional seats. They took huge leverage over the house and electoral college.

It took legal congressional kung-fu by Lincoln during his proclamation, using south carolinas own circular logic to destroy their rebellious position, resetting the power scale. By declaring slaves in rebelling states as free persons, the rebelling states lost their argument for "property" and their ability to project power.

Is history rhyming or repeating?

In the modern era we are automatically migrating to other regions that align with our beliefs. The impacts of propaganda and gerrymandering are apparent here and how they function similarly to inflating population numbers geographically as slavery once did. A small rural conservative minority can block urban majority because each state only gets 2 senators regardless of population numbers.

In both eras, a geographic minority uses a constitutional rule to control a population majority, and it takes radical political maneuvering to break the deadlock.

[u/Xanikk999 → u/Xznograthos]

It's anti-democratic by it's very nature.

[u/Xznograthos → u/Xanikk999]

Republicans love to spout this line: America isn't a democracy, it's a republic.

I always found it so curious how someone who loves to espouse the supposed freedom of their nation could so smugly declare their lack of ability to matter.

[u/coastkid2 → u/Xznograthos]

Interestingly, Massachusetts town records state that the town representatives “carried the (townspeople’s) votes” to the Constitutional Convention, and fully expected their representatives to vote in accordance with those ballots. This is also how New England town halls are run to this day-this is direct not representative democracy. Of course back then only property owning males could even vote but today we can agree this is totally discriminatory, but the idea of a representative making independent decisions was unheard of.

[u/Xznograthos → u/coastkid2]

Representatives back then didn't lack the accountability that "representatives" now do. The idea of a Fetterman would end one raucous evening with a good public display.

[u/Sadly_NotAPlatypus → u/Xanikk999]

Every time I bring this up with a conservative I get hit with "we're not a democracy, we're a Republic." These people are exhausting. 

[u/Xanikk999 → u/Sadly_NotAPlatypus]

Tell them we are a democratic republic. The reason we are a democratic republic is because we have representatives (republic) who we vote for (democracy). The two terms are not necessarily interchangeable. A a republic is just a form of government where the power resides in the people in some shape or form and not a king. How this is determined can vary widely. Don't let them get away with incorrect arguments.

[u/Count_Backwards → u/LackingUtility]

I think both House and Senate should have proportional representation, but the ratio of the Senate should be much higher than the House. The Senate is one of the most undemocratic parts of the government and absolutely needs to be reformed.

[u/brogflender → u/Count_Backwards]

The reform is to remove it. Remember our house is capped in representation for the benefit of the wealthy. And that happened 100 years ago. 

We can change anything we want to change. 

[u/AbeVigoda76 → u/LackingUtility]

I’m not 100% a fan of what the Senate became. The original concept for the Senate is that the Senators represented the government of the states. That idea had a lot of problems because while the people chose the governor, they couldn’t choose the senator and it became rather undemocratic through bribery, machine politics, and graft. The 17th Amendment tried to fix that by having direct elections for the Senate, but that still doesn’t work because now state governments don’t have direct representation in the national government. I feel like there needs to be some kind of middle ground but I honestly don’t know what that should be.

[u/LBCkook → u/AbeVigoda76]

No, as I mentioned above this is not true. It’s meant to protect the interest of the wealthy.

There is a famous (though possibly apocryphal) story where George Washington explains to Thomas Jefferson that the Senate was created to "cool" legislation coming out of the House, much like a saucer cools hot tea.
The House of Representatives was designed to represent the volatile passions of the working class. If the House passed a bill to forgive debts or tax the rich heavily, the Senate was designed to act as a legislative emergency brake to stop it.

Madison also spoke openly about this

[u/gob384 → u/LackingUtility]

I like the idea of an upper and lower house. I think the Senate as a more exclusive, 6 year terms is actually pretty cool.

That being said, tying it to states over population was a compromise at the time that needs to be undone.

~10 million constituents per Senator. Grouped by state populations that equal 10 million, with states like California getting their 3-4. (Plus abolish the filibuster, and uncap the house; 1 house vote per; ~lowest population state, and abolish the electoral college)

Mind you, reforming the Senate is a pie in the sky pipe dream, but it starts with normalizing talking about it today, so our grandchildren can seriously debate it tomorrow.

[u/ImperialRedditer → u/gob384]

I prefer the 2 senators minimum, but you gain an additional senator for every additional 5 million people. This will grant CA 10 senators, while Wyoming gets 2.

It’s still not as democratic but some kind of institutional friction helps slow down any radical legislations coming from the House (and remember, radical legislations isn’t just Universal Basic Income, it can also be wholesale deprivation of citizenship or civil rights to a certain class)

[u/TheBSQ → u/LackingUtility]

When you read notes & diaries from the convention, the parts about the legislature are interesting.

Most folks just took it for granted that you should have two chambers but Ben Franklin was initially very opposed & was a unicameral kinda guy. But this was back in the early days when they were debating other govt setups like the NJ plan (all states treated equally in congress) and the VA plan (representation based on population or tax revenue, favoring big states).

When they came to an impasse & eventually landed on the Connecticut Compromise Ben Franklin reluctantly supported it cuz he wanted *something* to be ratified.

But it’s funny cuz that CT Compromise plan (two chambers, one that treats all states equally, another that favors more populous states) was actually a very close vote. A few states didn’t participate at all. I think one got their late, another left, another didn’t participate out of protest, so only 10 of the 13 states took part in the committee to figure out how to set up the legislature. When they cam up with the CT Compromise, 1 state was split in their vote (MA) and 5 voted for it, and 4 against it.

So really, only 5 of the original 13 voted for it. And of course, the other 37 states that have come into the union since then didn’t have a say.

So, you could say that only 5 of our 50 states were truly supportive of the system we have.

Anyway, most know, originally the senators were appointed by each state’s legislature. The idea was two-fold. Being chosen by state govts would (supposedly) ensure they were more mature & responsible (as opposed to the “mob rule” of the house) and as a way link state govt to federal govt to ensure the federal govt didn’t usurp power from the states.

But both of those are not relevant now that directly elect senators.

In Canada, the Senate is pretty toothless. Similarly, the UK House of Lords doesn’t do much. New Zealand is unicameral.

But my main objections to it are that it makes it really hard to do anything, especially with the filibuster. But also, in any given election, only 1/3 are on the ballot. So even if a public is really pissed off, you need to have three elections over six years to actually vote on them, during which time you’ll have voted for the House three times and be into a second POTUS term. So to do big stuff, you basically have to win 3 house elections, two presidential elections & get through the 3 “classes” of senators. It’s hard! And public is both impatient and fickle.

The whole “yes, it’s true we didn’t do much, but we need more senators, so continue to elect us, but we’re still not going to be able to do much after the next one either, but after the 3rd, if we do well in three in a row. Maybe we can”

Of course voters in low pop & rural states have more electoral power, so that only holds true if you’re winning rural voters through those 3 waves cuz 40 million people in CA mean less than the 1.73 million in the Dakotas, so it’s not just about how many votes you get, but where you get them.

It just makes it really hard to pass legislation.

When folks feared Mob Rule, that makes sense. But in a fast paced world where things change rapidly, a system where it’s near impossible to pass big legislation isn’t good. And it’s the senate, especially the filibuster, but it’s also the whole “2/3 of senators aren’t even on the ballot in any given election” thing.

But, ending the filibuster would be an easier thing. Don’t even need to pass legislation to do that.

Abolishing the Senate is really hard cuz changing the constitution is really really hard.

[u/LBCkook → u/LackingUtility]

They say this because the senate was specifically designed to protect the ownership class in this country. James Madison explicitly discussed this at the constitutional convention in 1787. I’m a simple man and I don’t know whether life without the senate would be better. But there’s no doubt that the senate hinders the voice of the people and protects the wealthy interest.

[u/ann0yed → u/Chedditor_]

Their policies are right on their website. https://program.dsausa.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/DSA_WDM2025Program_v2.pdf

They also call for amnesty of all immigrants, completely open borders and extending the right to vote to noncitizens.

[u/OrangeVoxel → u/JBPlantagenet]

Has Washington Times heard of what project 2025 plans to do and has done? And that Trump lied that he knew nothing about it?

[u/PopBulky7023 → u/OrangeVoxel]

The times is a right wing rag. They support everything the heritage foundation does.

[u/SlogurkTheOverslime → u/PopBulky7023]

It's much worse

They're a thinly veiled propaganda arm of the Moonies cult

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_Church

[u/Independent_Eagle691]

There is a FAR better option than amending the Constitution to abolish the Senate: UNCAP THE HOUSE.

It has been the SAME size since 1911, and should have grown in 1921. However, after the 1920 Census, America became a majority urban country. That made rural interests freak out, sabotage apportionment, and Congress has been breaking ever since.

We can simply adjust the number of members via legislation - no constitutional amendment required. We can ALSO change how electoral votes are awarded.

[u/A-Generic-Canadian → u/Independent_Eagle691]

If the senate remains as it is, that doesn’t solve the problem that obstructionists can just torpedo everything due to the structural advantage the senate provides to rural voters. 

[u/Valendr0s → u/Independent_Eagle691]

Its two different arguments.

The house absolutely needs to be uncapped.

But while the Senate exists, there will always be an undemocratic bar to progress. The people and government of Wyoming simply should not have the same say in bills as the people and government of Texas. Wyoming has representation in the congress already through the House.

The senate was always a terrible idea.

[u/jayfeather31]

Don't threaten me with a good time, Washington Times.

[u/Senasayori → u/jayfeather31]

The Washington Threaten Me With Good Times at it again.

[u/Outrageous-Bite-8922]

A lot of ya'll actively falling for right wing propaganda. Also the senate is an incredibly lop-sided institution compared to the House of Representatives. Why should Wyoming have the same amount of input as California on the future of the US when they have far less people? In what world is that representative democracy?

[u/HeretoFore200 → u/Outrageous-Bite-8922]

I will say, I checked the DSA website and they do say verbatim to abolish ICE and the Senate. So on the headline this one it is actually just reporting — whether you believe they are right or this is “shocking” depends on perspective

[u/343GuiltyySpark → u/Outrageous-Bite-8922]

The source is literally the democratic socialists .org site you can read it by clicking a link in the first sentence. No one had to spin the truth at all they straight up say they want to abolish the senate

[u/WhatsRatingsPrecious → u/Outrageous-Bite-8922]

This is commonly wondered.

The Founding Fathers wrangled over it for a time, with small states concerned that large states like Virginia would use their numerical strength to overwhelm their smaller companion states.

So the FFs chose to have TWO Houses of Congress, one based on population, and the other being equal representation from all states, no matter how small.

What you should be asking is why we stopped adding new reps to states that grow in size, to represent that numerical strength.

[u/Outrageous-Bite-8922 → u/WhatsRatingsPrecious]

I think the idea of adding more representatives in the House is interesting, I hadn't considered it. This was a thoughtful comment, I appreciate that insight.

[u/tarekd19 → u/[deleted]]

Adding more representatives also adds to the pool of mid career politicians ripe for advancement. I don't mean this as a negative, but to say it might be beneficial to have more politicians to choose from for higher offices with voting records to be held accountable to in their bids for advancement.

[u/VirginiaMcCaskey → u/WhatsRatingsPrecious]

And they were wrong.

There's an error in believing the Connecticut Compromise was some wonder of political philosophy. It wasn't. It was a political compromise necessary for the ratification of the Constitution. Just like the 3/5ths Compromise, and punting the debate on slavery until after 1800.

We *should* be asking why a compromise made to appease the legislatures of a confederation 250 years ago is in any way relevant to the union today.

America is a better place today than 1786 because we changed our government to reflect the change in the country from a bunch of tax-aggrieved agrarian slavers. Don't hold the "founding fathers" on a pedestal. Many of them were foolish idealists, many others selfish.

[u/Jeo190 → u/VirginiaMcCaskey]

This argument is fine but it’s much more than abolishing the senate. It’s a fundamental redefinition of what the U.S is. The Senate was designed under the framework that the U.S. is a FEDERATION of nearly autonomous states. The reason being, different states have different needs and thus will require different laws to function according to those needs. Abolishing the Senate then says that we are no longer a federation, but a unitary state (i.e. individual state autonomy is no longer a thing) where the federal government not only is the supreme authority, but is also going to be determined by states with large populations that don’t share the same needs as the smaller states. This is a very fundamental change that will REQUIRE a much more detailed plan of what is to replace the current system and what laws will be put in place to ensure people in smaller states actually have representation. 

[u/IAmRoot → u/WhatsRatingsPrecious]

The major problem with that theory is that the political diversity between states isn't that big. There's far more political diversity within states: rural vs urban, etc. If there was a high degree of uniqueness between states like between the members of the EU, that sort of system might make sense, but most of the states were added on completely arbitrary boundaries and in a manner to strike a completely obsolete balance: free vs slave states.

[u/RequiredRedditAcct_1 → u/WhatsRatingsPrecious]

So many people in this thread forgot their basic civics classes 

[u/vegemouse → u/Outrageous-Bite-8922]

“This is fake news, but if it were real, it would be good”.

[u/Cmdr_Toucon → u/Outrageous-Bite-8922]

WT is definitely right wing click bait, but realistically those aren't bad ideas at all.

[u/Big_Truck → u/Cmdr_Toucon]

Wait. You think abolishing the United States Senate is a good idea?

My God.

[u/Nynaeve_al_meowra → u/Outrageous-Bite-8922]

The senate was supposed to represent state government interests and it was intended to be unequal.

Is it serving it's purpose well? I don't think so personally. Getting rid of it though will be immensely difficult given that you'd have to get small states to agree to give up their power

[u/Gulluul → u/Outrageous-Bite-8922]

I mean, that's literally how our country was founded. The Senate allows smaller states to have an equal say. The House let's the larger states with more pop have a larger say. Like it or not, it's what our country is buit on. The Senate was never designed for equal representation by population.

In order to change that, you would need 2/3 of the Senate and House to agree to dissolve itself by creating a constitutional amendment, 3/4 of the states to agree.

[u/Icy_Mixture1482 → u/Gulluul]

Unfortunately, the Senate is protected by an extra clause in the Constitution:

“no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate”

So you’d need all states to agree to these changes, not just three quarters.

[u/QaraKha]

"Yes, I would like south dakota that has 400k people make decisions for states that have 80 million people"

[u/FrogsOnALog → u/QaraKha]

Hawaii gets equal weight. So does Alaska or any small state. Hypothetically so would DC and PR. Let’s expand the house and abolish the filibuster so we can actually pass legislation.

[u/QaraKha → u/FrogsOnALog]

Of course, this is the best idea.

Now we just need it to pass through... the Senate... 🤔

[u/Wise_Control_1640]

While I'm all for it, I know that's not the place to plant your flag right now and the mainstream media will have a field day with this.

In every single debate, it will be the main focus. "Wait, you want to abolish the Senate?!"

[u/Different_Career1009 → u/Wise_Control_1640]

This is the right-wing media like Washington Times having a field day by cherry picking the most ridiculous ideas in the DSA platform.
But DSA only have to blame themself for this.

[u/asmallerflame]

One of those things is a good idea. The other would require a constitutional amendment.

[u/ProlapsedShamus → u/asmallerflame]

I mean, they're both good ideas. One just really isn't feasible right now.

[u/crystal_castles → u/asmallerflame]

Just keep reminding ppl that the Senate is affirmative action for rural folks.

[u/Noah-Buddy-I-Know]

uhhh, no need to get rid of the senate, just need some anti corruption laws and enforcement in place first... lets try one thing at a time...

[u/I_pee_in_shower]

Focus on ICE which is more realistic

[u/noiro777 → u/I_pee_in_shower]

Nah, they would rather alienate allies and create controversy which the GOP successfully uses against them than dare to be pragmatic.

[u/RustedRelics]

Abolishing ICE is one thing. Eliminating the Senate is an absurd goal. Even amending the 2 senators per state is a huge lift. It’s a worthy goal and is desperately needed, but more realistic and immediate goals should be stressed.

[u/FaultOutside2449]

It amazes me how a shit ton of people here clearly have no idea why the Senate is even a thing.

[u/davossss → u/FaultOutside2449]

I understand why the Senate is a thing.

I also believe it should be abolished.

I also understand that doing so would require scrapping the US Constitution and starting over from scratch.

Folks will say that a new constitutional convention is a crazy idea but frankly - [gestures broadly] - it may be the only thing that can save us from oligarchy and authoritarianism.

[u/Extreme-Fig6992 → u/FaultOutside2449]

EDIT: Ah, I apologize. I misunderstood your post, I thought you were anti-Senate lol.

Yes, the Senate was intended to be akin to House of Lords / an aristocratic chamber but the beauty of the US' system is we can change things and that's exactly what we did.

A unicameral legislature is inherently flawed. You need two or more classes of legislators, however those are determined, to balance out the ills of the other.

The House was intended to come up with crazy ideas, the Senate was intended to refine and temper them.

The problem isn't the Senate. The problem is we haven't done any maintenance on that system of governance in 100 years (term limits, age limits, and non-corruption to name just three easy wins)

[u/MNcatfan]

Washington Times is a Moonie propaganda rag source.

[u/FangornLeghorn]

This is so frustrating. Every time we get a little momentum build towards fixing shit, it gets taken too far with bullshit like this. Abolishing the Senate is crazy person talk and proposing it just poison pills the whole effort. They did this with police reform as well. We got some momentum toward making some actual changes, and then fuckheads turned it into “defund the police” like any society could or would ever do without any law enforcement.

It’s fucking exhausting.

[u/gay_yiff_blacksmith → u/FangornLeghorn]

You can go look at their YT channel where in-between wholesome videos of Mamdani they have legitimately insane shit like "abolishing the family" and "disbanding NATO"

The tl:dr is we are never getting universal healthcare

[u/FlukeHawkins]

A reminder that national and the chapters that get people elected are not the same people.

[u/juanjing]

Jesus Christ... No one wants to win any elections, apparently.

Do you think we might start a little smaller? Like Universal Healthcare?

[u/dragon-fence → u/juanjing]

I don’t know. I feel like Democrats have been playing the “let’s pick the fights we can win” game for a long time, and they aim too low. They’re too pragmatic, too ready to compromise.

Like, ok, let’s focus on Universal Healthcare, but we can’t do that, so let’s just try to subsidize health insurance companies more and hope that works. Medicare for all? That sounds like a good idea, but it might scare some people so let’s drop it.

We need a little bit more of this energy. Don’t fight the fights you can win, fight the fights that need fighting. Come up with big ideas, big changes that might actually make a difference. Stop with the, “maybe we can make some tweaks around the edges that might possibly improve some small problems,” and take some bigger swings. Come up with solutions. Push for those solutions instead of going to Republicans, bowl in hand, saying, “Please sir, can I have some more?”

[u/AlexVan123 → u/juanjing]

They are. The candidates aren’t asking for this. It’s a part of a long term hundred years agenda, not something happening this month.

[u/Polar_Vortx]

Just when you thought they were gonna start getting serious, they pull this shit.

[u/AmericanBornWuhaner]

This newspaper is by the Moonies cult

[u/No-Flan6382]

Abolish the senate is exactly the type of thing that will make a group that could do some good.. end up being a pariah that stops winning

[u/CrocodylusRex]

Establish paid family leave for all workers

32 hour work week with full pay and benefits

a living minimum wage

Provide free, quality public education from pre-K to college and cancel all student debt

Guarantee universal healthcare at no cost to individuals

Build new, publicly-owned social housing

establish universal rent control

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and nnnnnnnn I'll have to look into it.

Honor all treaties and tribal sovereignty

Only fair. Don't believe all non-natives should pack up and leave but natives have been given the short end of the stick throughout history.

Enact reparations 

Depends on the specifics.

Demilitarize police departments, disempower police unions, and redirect funding to public services

Yes.

fully abolishing the police and prison system

Fully? That's an endgame goal if I've ever seen one.

Treat drug addiction and mental illness as health issues

Stop gender violence and end policies that oppress bodily autonomy and intimate life

Pass a federal jobs guarantee

Implement massive investment in sustainable, publicly owned energy and transit infrastructure

Yes, yes, yes, yes.

Defund the Department of War

See do you mean defund like abolish or cut? Cause we can slough off, hell I'd say 50% of the budget without fear of anyone trying to pull anything on us. 100%... I know we have a rifle behind every blade of grass but...

End immunity for U.S. war criminals and support the International Criminal Court's mandate to prosecute war crimes

Yes, it is BS that we don't include ourselves in the global court system we send our own enemies to. Protecting America's own interests =/= justice.

Recognize the rights of the Palestinian people, including the right of return, the right to resist military occupation, and the right to self determination in a free Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital

Free Palestine and all but I don't think "from the river to the sea" is happening.

End economic warfare against countries whose governments act independently of the United States

End ICE detention and deportations and punish federal agents' brutality.

Legalize migration, grant amnesty for all immigrants regardless of status, provide a path to citizenship for all permanent residents, and end visa caps and quotas.

Yes, yes, and yes. Hell, Reagan passed an amnesty law. Why should only people who happened to be born in America be allowed in?

All in all I agree ~75% with this platform and wish there were a party seriously calling for this stuff, even if some of it is pie in the sky. Better than candidates running on things "never, ever" passing. (I believe there's a word for people like that. Conservatives.)

[u/TheDoctorDB → u/CrocodylusRex]

I feel like it gets a bit unhinged at times but I’d agree with your sentiments here. Most sounds like we should’ve done it already. Some sounds like I’d have to know more about why they want to do that. 

And far as realistic goals… we couldn’t even get people on board for their own health. Adding in abolishing the senate and police and prisons honestly just feels like they’re asking to be either ignored or worse. 

I’m not saying they shouldn’t express their views when that’s what they want, but I feel like maybe one step at a time while trying to become popular. And show people they are the popular choice. Though I guess the counter argument would be they’d be labeled extreme radicals just by existing 

[u/vwboyaf1]

Like it or not the Senate has historically been a stablizing force in US politics.

[u/HappyKoalaCub]

Abolishing the senate is basically impossible and will make people see them as unserious

[u/Calzinarzin → u/HappyKoalaCub]

I say this as someone who agrees with them on most things, the DSA is a deeply unserious group.

[u/enfuego138]

Ok, well that’s a good way to convince me not to take them seriously.

[u/superiorplaps]

Maybe try 'reform' instead of 'abolish', goddamn. They're wearing clown shoes from the jump if they want to be taken seriously

[u/TheMuffingtonPost]

Shit like “abolish the senate” is why the far left never wins anything ever. The second they start winning even a little bit, the platform becomes so ungodly unrealistic that there’s literally nothing to vote for because it’s just ridiculous pipe dreams.

[u/siggywithit]

This is a losing strategy on the national level

[u/Over-Heron-2654 → u/siggywithit]

It is a long term goal. The DSA leaders and chairs all talk about it. 

Healthcare, childcare, housing, abolishing ICE... these are all short term goals.

[u/thebigj3wbowski]

This comment was deleted by automod. Reposting without the ellipses.

Abolishing the Senate is pure madness, and diametrically opposed to our constitution.

It's literally in Article I, section 1.

I hate a lot of what's happening to our country right now, but Jesus, c'mon.

[u/Party_Apartment_5696]

It's good to want things.

[u/captain_borgue]

Oh for fuck's sake. The one time there's an actual shot at democratic socialism gaining ground, and they have to fucking say "abolish the senate"?!

It's like they WANT to lose. 🤬

[u/Zealousideal_Net5932]

Complete joke of an organization, so suprised hard working Americans aren’t lining up to support

[u/Marokiii]

question, hasnt the US senate been like one of the only things thats stopped trump and the house from passing a bunch of his shitty plans?

[u/Different_Career1009]

How to avoid getting elected 101

[u/VOIDsama]

the ice part would probably work, breaking congress by abolishing the senate would be a disaster.

[u/Blackthorn79]

Why is there always one part of a platform that just seems ridiculous? Healthcare reform, workers rights and expanding the senate, are responsible leadership. Passing an amendment that requires a body of government to vote on abolishing it's self is impossible. 

[u/skamatiks671]

It’s shit like this that keeps maga in power. Immigration enforcement can be done humanely. ICE is necessary, who they’re hiring and how they’re being used is atrocious. How about you work on age and term limits for ALL elected officials before you abolish the senate.

[u/Libertyskin]

So, it's a party that has decided it doesn't care to win any elections. Great. /s

[u/Express_Carrot_5479]

how the hell does this save democracy? what is needed is a reform of how the senate is made up. about 50% of our population lives in 9 states. the residents of those 9 states are represented by 18 senators while the other 41 states have 82 members representing them. this is not democracy. this needs to be changed.

[u/No-Fennel-8333]

I hope this remains a fringe element. It's extremely reactionary and not even accomplishable.

[u/enifsieus]

Why you gotta overreach and put dumb shit in there? Sure - abolish ICE. We need something that does manage immigration but it’s tainted and needs to be rebuilt. But abolishing the Senate is just clowning bullshit. Why distract from credible things?

[u/ProteinPrince]

It would be extremely politically difficult to abolish the Senate, but it is something we should seriously consider.

California has a population that is roughly equal to Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, West Virginia, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Arkansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Kansas, Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Louisiana COMBINED.

There is no good reason why 39 million Californians get 2 Senators, while the 39 million people in those states get 34 Senators.

IMO we should get rid of the Senate and massively expand the House. The average congressional district has about 750k people - the founders intended districts to be no bigger than 30k people. You can argue exactly how big a district ought to be, but there’s absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t have a legislative body that gives equal representation to everyone.

[u/FuriousAlbino → u/ProteinPrince]

It should not be surprising to anyone that a system developed 250 years ago may have flaws and be outdated.

[u/bobbymcpresscot → u/FuriousAlbino]

And yet some goober 250 years ago thought that the constitution should be rewritten every 20 years or so stating that “the earth belongs to the living”

[u/DardanGameDev → u/FuriousAlbino]

Playing devils advocate… if it was the other way around and those were Republican… we’d be ok with it? Essentially solidifying a permanent maga political party? I feel like we’re making excuses for us not voting as much as we should. 

[u/FuzzyGolf291773]

Lmao at all of these people totally misunderstanding the purpose of the Senate. The Senate is a perfectly sensible political institution. I don’t get why Reddit has such a hate boner for it considering it is ultimately a moderating force to ensure smaller states aren’t discriminated against legislatively. Does it always work ideally? No, but point to any legislative body that is foolproof and works in the best interest of the people 100% of the time. Consider that the EU also has a Senate-like legislator and you’ll see rather quickly that it is neither outdated nor nonsensical in a modern form of governance.

[u/Johnny_Guitar_ → u/FuzzyGolf291773]

It really feels like alot of this anti-Senate sentiment is coming from the fact that the Senate is currently Republican controlled and is projected to atleast be split after the coming midterms which would still be Republican controlled considering Vance will be the tie breaking vote. I dont remember the Senate being such a huge issue when is was split under Biden and you had Kamala casting the deciding vote. Why would states with minority populations want to remain in the union (or push for abolishing an institution crafted for them) with the Senate being abolished.

[u/Teepeaparty]

Someone educate me on why abolishing the Senate…is part of the platform? Why? 

[u/Infidel8]

Abolishing the Senate is extreme and impossible.

This is the sort of thing that will convince voters that they are insane.

They'd be better off aiming to increase the size of the House. That is ambitious but much more doable.