Rosenfeld cont.

I hate to seem like a follower, but from what I read of Jenny's post she seems to have hit the nail on the head with the thoughts that I considered throughout my reading of "What Democracy?".

While I do find the essay very interesting, a lot of Rosenfeld's arguments for abolishing the Senate can just as easily be flipped around to argue against the abolition of the Senate. Rosenfeld complains throughout the essay that smaller states control more power than larger states and that small states could all band together to thwart larger states and prevent legislation. He concludes by saying that the idea of protecting small states against larger states is "pure mythology," which seems odd after he spends 10 pages explaining how we need to protect large states from small states.

Can we not conclude, however, that if the Senate were abolished, the tables would be turned? If we were to use such a highly hypothetical situation as Rosenfeld uses, wouldn't it follow that a small number of states would rule tyrannically over a larger number of small states? Rosenfeld dodges this question with a roundabout answer, but can't we easily imagine a situation in which a smaller state was not able to get funding for a service needed because the (fewer) large states didn't deem it as appropriate as their states' needs? We cannot so easily dismiss the issue of "mob rule," for it would in many situations leave out the little man/state as James Madison predicted could happen in The Federalist Papers.

If Rosenfeld is serious, why not take it one step further and redraw state lines such that a state's political geography mirrors its population? This would be closer to the British system, because we could then have smaller states, meaning more representatives, more choices, more voices, etc. etc. Because all states will have an equal population, we won't have to worry about any states being exploited like Rosenfeld feels they are. Isn't this an equally improbable, but more effective way of enacting democracy?