Is it possible to abolish the House of Representatives?

[rupol2000]

The feds can effectively control the local authorities, as long as they themselves are not dependent on them.

 

[rupol2000]

Corruption increases with the decrease of observation

States have lower levels of observation than the Feds

I said about it. To control them they must have independence

 

[WinterBorn]

They never said that

Ok, it was "We'll have to pass it to find out whats in it".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

California has the same number of votes in the Senate as Wyoming, that's neither equality nor democracy.

Again RETARD we are NOT a democracy.

 

[rightwinger]

Ok, it was "We'll have to pass it to find out whats in it".

What was said was they needed to pass a final bill through the House before it was determined what was in the final agreed on bill

 

[Ralph Norton]

California has the same number of votes in the Senate as Wyoming, that's neither equality nor democracy.

Thus the existence of the House.
Please forgive me for adding this but: duh

 

[Captain Caveman]

Democracy is the rule of the people. it is in both cases a democracy, but I would prefer here the terms "aristocratic" and "plebeian" (or "primitive") democracy. The real democratic vertical of the King-Roman Senate of the Patricians against the plebeian flat model. The Republic includes both sides.

Democracy is where you can go onto the Commons/Senate floor to partake in politics and decide laws, but because millions of people can't fit into one room, then you have the right to vote for someone to speak on your behalf. That person represents you, and that's representative democracy. So it's having the right to vote and be represented, that's democracy.

Now, whether that representive decides on their own what's best for the people, or voting with the will of the people, is a bone of contention because I believe they should do so to the latter.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I can understand that. Maybe it's the American anti-royalism ingrained in me, but I'd have a problem with inherited positions (with actual political power) in The Year of Our Lord 2022.

The UK monarchy is just purely constitutional and thus just undertakes various official, ceremonial, diplomatic and representational duties and no more.

 

[Pellinore]

The UK monarchy is just purely constitutional and thus just undertakes various official, ceremonial, diplomatic and representational duties and no more.

Yeah, Head of State stuff. I get it. The House of Lords is made of up of people who inherited their titles, though, isn't it? That seems a bit antiquated to me.

 

[Batcat]

What did plebeian mean?




plebeian, also spelled Plebian, Latin Plebs, plural Plebes, member of the general citizenry in ancient Rome as opposed to the privileged patrician class.

plebeian | Definition, History, & Examples - Encyclopedia ...​

In other words the classes that get pissed on.

 

[Pellinore]

Again RETARD we are NOT a democracy.

This is the second time I've seen you insist that. What makes you think the US isn't a democracy?

I have a feeling you're saying "democracy" when what you mean is a "DIRECT democracy."

 

[Captain Caveman]

Yeah, Head of State stuff. I get it. The House of Lords is made of up of people who inherited their titles, though, isn't it? That seems a bit antiquated to me.

The out going Prime Minister tends to appoint a Lord. Usually the speaker of the house gets nominated but despite the Labour opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, nominating John Bercow, the Tory government snubbed him, so he won't get a peerage.

The Commons and Lords have been around for centuries, I think since 1332. The problem with UK history, it goes back thousands of years, Americans only tend to think of 1776 onwards. England was formally recognised in 927, and even then, history of kings and queens precede that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This is the second time I've seen you insist that. What makes you think the US isn't a democracy?

I have a feeling you're saying "democracy" when what you mean is a "DIRECT democracy."

We are a REPUBLIC that elects representatives to rule for us. And the way we do that is by Population in the House and by states in the Senate. Claiming because we have 2 senators per state we are not a republic or a democratic republic is in fact RETARDED,

 

[$ecular#eckler]

It would be an absurd republic if the House of Representatives was decommissioned.

 

[para bellum]

The Constitution is a Compact between the States.

The Framers had State Legislatures pick Senators because the Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the State. The House represents the interests of the people.

The 17th undermined a fundamental protection built into the Constitution. That is to prevent the whims of the population (as represented by the house) from passing laws adverse to the State, such as taking State land without the State's consent.

The 17th turned the Senate into a popularity contest, just like the House. Senators only have to satisfy voters, not State Legislatures (who they are supposed to be representing).

Now Democrats call the Senate "undemocratic", because Wyoming has an equal voice in the Senate as California.

Which was the exact intent of the Framers (and also why there is an equal standing clause in the Constitution).

Democrats want to abolish the Constitutional function of the Senate- allocating Senators by the census and electing them by popular vote would just make it an expansion of the House of Representatives.

This is not a "democratic" change- it is a fascist change that enables discrimination against the minority.

 

[para bellum]

The terms of the two offices reflect their purpose. A Representative serves for two years, because the Framers recognized that public opinion can change quickly. The "People's House" should reflect public opinion, so it requires shorter terms.

State's interests in Federal policy are not so volatile, and Senators should serve longer terms to act as a buffer against drastic changes initiated in the House. Since they were not elected by popular vote, they had a layer of insulation from angry voters.

There was corruption when State Legislatures were picking Senators, that's true. But there's still corruption in Senate elections today, so the 17th didn't really fix anything...

 

[ESay]

Yeah, Head of State stuff. I get it. The House of Lords is made of up of people who inherited their titles, though, isn't it? That seems a bit antiquated to me.

That was the very intent from the beginning. The Commons represent the people, the Lords represent the Crown. The checks and balances, sort of.

 

[Pellinore]

We are a REPUBLIC that elects representatives to rule for us. And the way we do that is by Population in the House and by states in the Senate. Claiming because we have 2 senators per state we are not a republic or a democratic republic is in fact RETARDED,

Settle down, Francis. I'm not claiming that. I'm trying to inform you that we are, in fact, both a democracy and a republic.

A democracy (literally, "rule of the people") means that the people have the power to make change, as opposed to an autocracy ("rule of one"), a theocracy ("rule of the church"), etc. There are different types of democracy: direct (when everyone votes for every bill) and indirect (where we elect representatives to vote for us).

A republic (literally, a "public thing") is a type of government where voters select representatives to exercise their power in the government. If that sounds familiar, it is because it is in essence the same thing as an indirect democracy. The opposite would be a monarchy, where one king or queen runs the whole show.

We're both.

 

[Pellinore]

The Constitution is a Compact between the States.

The Framers had State Legislatures pick Senators because the Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the State. The House represents the interests of the people.

The 17th undermined a fundamental protection built into the Constitution. That is to prevent the whims of the population (as represented by the house) from passing laws adverse to the State, such as taking State land without the State's consent.

The 17th turned the Senate into a popularity contest, just like the House. Senators only have to satisfy voters, not State Legislatures (who they are supposed to be representing).

Now Democrats call the Senate "undemocratic", because Wyoming has an equal voice in the Senate as California.

Which was the exact intent of the Framers (and also why there is an equal standing clause in the Constitution).

Democrats want to abolish the Constitutional function of the Senate- allocating Senators by the census and electing them by popular vote would just make it an expansion of the House of Representatives.

This is not a "democratic" change- it is a fascist change that enables discrimination against the minority.

I haven't seen anyone—D or R—call for a change in how we allocate or elect Senators; it's the Electoral College that gets the heat.

The solution to that I like the best is to simply do away with winner-take-all and require every State to use the Congressional District Method, like Maine and Nebraska. EV's are allocated by district, and the remaining two go to the overall State winner. More people (such as California Republicans, who might as well stay home) would have their votes count, and it would all but do away with the election being determined by a half dozen or so swing states as the rest get ignored. Easy peasy.

 

[Pellinore]

The terms of the two offices reflect their purpose. A Representative serves for two years, because the Framers recognized that public opinion can change quickly. The "People's House" should reflect public opinion, so it requires shorter terms.

State's interests in Federal policy are not so volatile, and Senators should serve longer terms to act as a buffer against drastic changes initiated in the House. Since they were not elected by popular vote, they had a layer of insulation from angry voters.

There was corruption when State Legislatures were picking Senators, that's true. But there's still corruption in Senate elections today, so the 17th didn't really fix anything...

Yeah, I haven't analyzed it fully but from what I do know, I'm not convinced that it prevented any corruption. But hey, it was the Progressive Era, and until enough political will bubbles up against it, that's what we've got.