Rosenfeld's What Democracy?

The United States Senate does not need to be abolished. Richard Rosenfeld’s article, What Democracy: The Case for Abolishing the U.S. Senate, tries and fails to make the argument that the U.S. Senate needs to be done away with and is undemocratic. Not only is the U.S. Senate an imperative part to the U.S. Government but also plays a significant part in U.S. lawmaking. Proportionality is not Democracy. Just because the Senate is not evenly represented across the United States according to population, does not mean it isn’t a part of democracy. Not only does the Senate act as a check to the House and the President, but moreover gives equal representation to states with regards to unique environmental causes, land issues and agricultural sectors.

It is commonly known that states with large urban cities have larger populations such as New York or California. These cities are very important to the United States, but are not the whole. Even though Nevada doesn’t have as large as a population as New York, doesn’t mean it should have less Senators than other states. The proportionality aspect is already covered with the distribution of members of the House. The Senators can evenly represent the 50 states on others issues such as the environment. Many less populated states have large land reserves and have grand environmental issues, such as Alaska. Is it fair to say that the polar bears in Alaska should get less representation than the pigeons in New York? What about the oil reserves? Rosenfeld would say yes. Rosenfeld believes that we should abolish the Senate and therefore due away with our check and balance system. I would like to ask Rosenfeld, what would happen if a leader took over the House corruptly by bribing the members? What would happen to the U.S.? This can happen. This is happening in other parts of the world that claim themselves as democracies. A majority of the people are unhappy, but because they don’t have a check and balance system they can’t do much about it. They just have to sit tight and wait for some country like the U.S., to intervene.