Should the U.S. Senate be abolished?

[MaggieMae]

I agree, the Senate is meant to work in behalf of the States. The better they work for the state the more balanced the government will be.

That's the purpose, but how often even under the current system do we hear the groans of people who live in Southern (warm) climates bemoaning the fact that the LIHEAP program only benefits Northern climates and that it ain't fair? (As an example.) What about all that "pork" that one lawmaker gets for his/her home state that people regularly complain about? The issues of today, with three times the number of citizens, are far more intense and complicated.

 

[MaggieMae]

yes let's repress the masses more! grand idea

Politics went downhill as soon as that melarkey was enacted. The Founders recognized the folly of pure democracy and designed teh senate as an instrument for counter acting the stupidity of the masses of people. Returning to that standard would improve governance. I mean, how wise a decision can there be from people who cannot identify the first president of the US, or any other relevant fact of American history?

I just don't agree. Those writing the laws (reps and senators) should be held accountable to the will of the people they're ruling over.

That said, there are judges in several states who campaign and kowtow to public opinion in the process when they should be the arbiters of the law. That needs to change.

Point 1: That's what elections are for. If people choose not to vote, then turn around and complaint, that's their problem.

Point 2: I don't think judges at any level should be elected; they should be appointed by the leadership of the jurisdiction which they would oversee.

 

[Oddball]

I agree, the Senate is meant to work in behalf of the States. The better they work for the state the more balanced the government will be.

That's the purpose, but how often even under the current system do we hear the groans of people who live in Southern (warm) climates bemoaning the fact that the LIHEAP program only benefits Northern climates and that it ain't fair? (As an example.) What about all that "pork" that one lawmaker gets for his/her home state that people regularly complain about? The issues of today, with three times the number of citizens, are far more intense and complicated.

Would all be non-issues if the Senators were still under the control of the state houses, who, via apportionment, were the tax collectors for all that crap.

 

[MaggieMae]

I think so, no question.

We have Senators who represent 800,000 people making decisions for the 300 million of the rest of us.

Holy Cow Criss--have you done a 180 turn or what? Please tell us why you think the U.S. senate should be abolished?

Is it that you now believe in smaller government or is it that DEMOCRATS in the senate just turned down any public option--& you're ticked & just want them abolished---

It's kind of hard for me to believe that you have moved over into the conservative column.

View attachment 8294

Why should a state with 800,000 people have as much power as a state with 30,000,000 people? It is the most undemocratic thing imaginable.

It is better to have one legislature, one president, and one Supreme Court.

In order to make it completely fair, then, you would have to redraw the boundaries of all states and make them equal. The people in Southern California don't have the same interests as Northern California. That's why the House of Representatives is elected by district--to get the most feedback from the people as possible. Theoretically, the House drafts a bill which might favor only one state or vicinity, which then moves to the Senate where 50 of them decide whether or not it's beneficial or needed for the state AND the rest of the country. Fresh eyes, so to speak.

Think of it this way: Without the Senate, we would already have health care reform, a 'la Nancy Pelosi. No no no!!!

 

[Cecilie1200]

You guys do realize that there are options in between an electoral system that's biased in favor of one group and direct democracy, right?

And your brilliant suggestion for totally remaking our system of government would be . . . ?

Another swing and miss. Suggesting that one feature of government be modified is not "totally remaking our system of government".

In other words, you have no fucking clue. You're just babbling. "There are options between an electoral system and direct democracy . . . and how dare you ask me to NAME any of them?"

Yeah, we could switch to a system that isn't an electoral system without totally remaking things. Sure. That's not even a swing and a miss, dumbass. That's getting hit with the ball.

 

[Polk]

And your brilliant suggestion for totally remaking our system of government would be . . . ?

Another swing and miss. Suggesting that one feature of government be modified is not "totally remaking our system of government".

In other words, you have no fucking clue. You're just babbling. "There are options between an electoral system and direct democracy . . . and how dare you ask me to NAME any of them?"

That's not what you asked. You're changing the question. It's not middle points between an electoral system generally speaking and direct democracy. It's points between an electoral system which favors one narrow group and a direct democracy. The answer to that is pretty obvious: an electoral system in which give one group an extra voice in the system, but still maintains the idea of representation.

Yeah, we could switch to a system that isn't an electoral system without totally remaking things. Sure. That's not even a swing and a miss, dumbass. That's getting hit with the ball.

Talk about someone babbling...

 

[Lycurgus]

I think so, no question.

We have Senators who represent 800,000 people making decisions for the 300 million of the rest of us.

Yes and Canada too, then Obama and Michelle should be pronounced King and Queen of North America!

 

[CryGlennCry]

Wow. The problem isn't the senate. The problem is lobbying money. Take that away and senators would again focus on OUR interests. Not that we shouldn't throw out the lot of 'em.
But they aren't the problem.
Our current system is the problem.

 

[Oddball]

Yes...Too much freedom of speech is the problem.

 

[Contumacious]

I think the Senate should be strengthened by repealing the XVII Amendment.

Yes, indeed. The seventeenth Amendment ought to be repealed, well ignored, since it was UNCONSTITUTIONALLY "RATIFIED".

the last sentence of Art. V of the Constitution says: “….no state, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate,”

The following state rejected the amendment:

Utah (February 26, 1913)

The following states have not ratified the amendment:

1. Alabama
2. Kentucky
3. Mississippi
4. Virginia
5. South Carolina
6. Georgia
7. Maryland
8. Delaware
9. Rhode Island
10. Florida


.

 

[DiveCon]

Wow. The problem isn't the senate. The problem is lobbying money. Take that away and senators would again focus on OUR interests. Not that we shouldn't throw out the lot of 'em.
But they aren't the problem.
Our current system is the problem.

and putting the appointment by the states back in control of senate seats would eliminate that problem

for the senators

then you need to look at your LOCAL state elections
make sure the people you are electing there are honest and responsible

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Wow. The problem isn't the senate. The problem is lobbying money. Take that away and senators would again focus on OUR interests. Not that we shouldn't throw out the lot of 'em.
But they aren't the problem.
Our current system is the problem.

and putting the appointment by the states back in control of senate seats would eliminate that problem

for the senators

then you need to look at your LOCAL state elections
make sure the people you are electing there are honest and responsible

Good point, but it's easier to effect change at the state level than it is at the federal level.

 

[Intense]

I would love to see a law that made Unions for All Government Workers Illegal!

 

[DiveCon]

Wow. The problem isn't the senate. The problem is lobbying money. Take that away and senators would again focus on OUR interests. Not that we shouldn't throw out the lot of 'em.
But they aren't the problem.
Our current system is the problem.

and putting the appointment by the states back in control of senate seats would eliminate that problem

for the senators

then you need to look at your LOCAL state elections
make sure the people you are electing there are honest and responsible

Good point, but it's easier to effect change at the state level than it is at the federal level.

yes, if you stay informed on whats happening

 

[Oddball]

Abolish AFSCME?

I'm there, dude.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3mw49mk_x0]YouTube - AFSCME[/ame]

 

[Intense]

Abolish AFSCME?

I'm there, dude.

YouTube - AFSCME

They take care of You Both Before and After the send You to The Hospital! LOL Remember to check the undersidde of your car for a bomb before getting in it. LOL

 

[oreo]

And your brilliant suggestion for totally remaking our system of government would be . . . ?

Another swing and miss. Suggesting that one feature of government be modified is not "totally remaking our system of government".

In other words, you have no fucking clue. You're just babbling. "There are options between an electoral system and direct democracy . . . and how dare you ask me to NAME any of them?"

Yeah, we could switch to a system that isn't an electoral system without totally remaking things. Sure. That's not even a swing and a miss, dumbass. That's getting hit with the ball.

Look--CRISS is just ticked that he has a loaded democrat government that can't get a paid for "someone" else health care ticket. The DEMOCRAT senate just turned down his FREE RIDE--& he's pissed. "The typical Obama voter."

 

[American Horse]

I think the Senate should be strengthened by repealing the XVII Amendment.

yes let's repress the masses more! grand idea

This is a republic. Election of US Senators by state legislatures (pre 17th Amendment) would restore the dynamic of reflecting the will of the state,s citizens through their legislatures. The population can react to new political situations quicker than we have in the present situation in which US Senators are little more than super-representatives; IE representaties with a state wide constituency serving superannuated terms which just allow them more time to look for money to promote their next election. If elected by state legislatures, there would be turover of the Senatorial membership, and their election would be outside a process which requres selling their votes for campaign money, as well as becoming imbedded in the senate for a lifetime tenure.

 

[Polk]

I think the Senate should be strengthened by repealing the XVII Amendment.

yes let's repress the masses more! grand idea

This is a republic. Election of US Senators by state legislatures (pre 17th Amendment) would restore the dynamic of reflecting the will of the state,s citizens through their legislatures. The population can react to new political situations quicker than we have in the present situation in which US Senators are little more than super-representatives; IE representaties with a state wide constituency serving superannuated terms which just allow them more time to look for money to promote their next election. If elected by state legislatures, there would be turover of the Senatorial membership, and their election would be outside a process which requres selling their votes for campaign money, as well as becoming imbedded in the senate for a lifetime tenure.

What would be the virtue of giving more voice to lines on a map?

 

[American Horse]

yes let's repress the masses more! grand idea

This is a republic. Election of US Senators by state legislatures (pre 17th Amendment) would restore the dynamic of reflecting the will of the state,s citizens through their legislatures. The population can react to new political situations quicker than we have in the present situation in which US Senators are little more than super-representatives; IE representaties with a state wide constituency serving superannuated terms which just allow them more time to look for money to promote their next election. If elected by state legislatures, there would be turover of the Senatorial membership, and their election would be outside a process which requres selling their votes for campaign money, as well as becoming imbedded in the senate for a lifetime tenure.

What would be the virtue of giving more voice to lines on a map?

That's not the practical effect. The practical effect is that Senatorial representation at the federal level would respond more quickly to the voters if state legislatures selected US senators according to the political expression or the will of the local people. That would happen because state legislatures are "creatues" of the people. There would be greater variety in the senate's membership, although party affiliation would probably not change in some instances; Massachusettes for instance. State government units are closer, and don't lose touch with the people as do those on the federal level. You would probably agree that Senators now become indebted to those who contribute to their campaign "war-chests".

But as a further example, local township " trustees" here in Indiana are excellent at administering welfare to hardship cases. Townships are a lower echelon level than even counties, and the township trustee knows the circumstances of his constituents, can help a "client" resolve a landlord/rent problem, or other types of finincial problems so that people get help, but are also helped to see a way out of their dilemma. There is a movement to make government more "efficient" by eliminating trustees and combining their job at a higher level, but at least we are having a debate about it. Local response is the main issue as I see it.

Kevin Kennedy also answered your question a few posts back: "... it's easier to effect change at the state level than it is at the federal level."