Should the U.S. Senate be abolished?

[Polk]

Having the Senate elected indirectly by state legislatures will result in greater representation of public opinion than direct election? That's a pretty far-fetched argument.

 

[DiveCon]

Having the Senate elected indirectly by state legislatures will result in greater representation of public opinion than direct election? That's a pretty far-fetched argument.

no, it would be representing the state issues better
and also pass on that responsibility to the legislatures

 

[The T]

NO. However, the 17th Amendment should be Amended to NIL.

It should be restored to ORIGINAL INTENT.

AMENDMENT XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

______________

It was an Idiotic MOVE as we have seen with the passing of Senator Glub-Glub From Massechussetts...who's legislature sought to nominate a successor in Teddys' MOLD.

I wonder if he Killed anyone by vehicle/water/Alchohol mix?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Amendment guaranteed the public's direct action. You folks want to de-democratize the electoral process and return to "virtual" representation.

 

[Polk]

Having the Senate elected indirectly by state legislatures will result in greater representation of public opinion than direct election? That's a pretty far-fetched argument.

no, it would be representing the state issues better
and also pass on that responsibility to the legislatures

Which gets back to the point: Why are arbitrary lines on a map more important than real flesh and blood human beings?

 

[DiveCon]

Having the Senate elected indirectly by state legislatures will result in greater representation of public opinion than direct election? That's a pretty far-fetched argument.

no, it would be representing the state issues better
and also pass on that responsibility to the legislatures

Which gets back to the point: Why are arbitrary lines on a map more important than real flesh and blood human beings?

they are NOT arbitrary

 

[Polk]

no, it would be representing the state issues better
and also pass on that responsibility to the legislatures

Which gets back to the point: Why are arbitrary lines on a map more important than real flesh and blood human beings?

they are NOT arbitrary

Of course they are.

 

[DiveCon]

Which gets back to the point: Why are arbitrary lines on a map more important than real flesh and blood human beings?

they are NOT arbitrary

Of course they are.

no, they are NOT
they are definitive and static

 

[Polk]

they are NOT arbitrary

Of course they are.

no, they are NOT
they are definitive and static

They are now, but that's not really the point. Why are the Dakotas two separate states? Ditto Idaho and Montana? There isn't a real reason.

 

[American Horse]

Having the Senate elected indirectly by state legislatures will result in greater representation of public opinion than direct election? That's a pretty far-fetched argument.

As you are aware senators stand for election only every 6 years. Few citizens actually pay much attention to the votes of their US senators on issues, much less how they stand on some, except for the most important. People are usually not even aware when their US Senator will next stand for election. Even if they dislike a vote by their senator, by the time an election rolls around again, they will vote pretty much as they have in the past; if they voted against last time they will again, and/or vice versa.

Members of state legislatures are aware of issues at all times which are important to their state since they write laws in their regard, and how those issues are reflected on at the federal level. In a republic we elect "representatives" to make judgements for us, and one of those judgements, as originally set out in our constitution was the election of a "state's" US Senator in the elected body of the states which is the US Senate; to represent their state as a whole there.

The citizens are represented in our system of government by representatives, which they elect directly.

The States are represented in our system by senators, which would better be elected by representatives of state government, for the purpose of electing the state's representative in the federal body.

The way senators were originally elected was reflective of the way the president was and still is elected by the electoral college. It's a complex republican form of government.

 

[The T]

Of course they are.

no, they are NOT
they are definitive and static

They are now, but that's not really the point. Why are the Dakotas two separate states? Ditto Idaho and Montana? There isn't a real reason.

Your JUMP from 'Not Static Figures' to the reason why TWO Dakotas, and Idaho/Montana?

Is there a North Idaho? South Idaho? North Montana/South Montana?

Fascinating piece of shit BRAIN you work with. I fail to see the correlation as to the TOPIC.

Are you always this erratic?

 

[frazzledgear]

I think so, no question.

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

Why would you ban the Senate? What purpose would that serve? It is the only body that insures that ALL states have an equal opportunity to have their concerns addressed by federal government on an EQUAL footing with every other state -because all states have the same number of Senators. The House exists as the representatives of the people of each state -the more people a state has, the more representatives they have in the House. But Senators exist as representatives of the STATE itself and all states have the equal and identical right to have their concerns addressed by federal government regardless of population. The concerns of California, New York and Florida are not the same as those of Wyoming, Nevada or even Rhode Island -and without the Senate, those states are totally screwed over and would never have its concerns addressed by federal government. There are times the concerns of states clash -but would cause significant, irreparable harm if a few densely populated and highly urbanized areas were making the decisions for the greater numbers of less densely populated, rural agricultural states.

Their representatives in the House already have the least influence anyway. Getting rid of the Senate insures the complete castration of all states but the most densely populated highly urbanized states. Federal government would be controlled only by densely populated largely urbanized states -at the expense of all other states. But the east and west coasts do not represent the majority of people living in this country though.

I never fail to be amazed by the people who haven't a clue how our own government works and seem to think we have a system that doesn't exist. Each state functions as a mini-country unto itself even while part of the union under one flag. You obviously spent much less time thinking this through than the founders did -who agonized for years about how to prevent power from becoming centralized in the hands of the most populous states which can only happen at the expense of all the other states. Our federal government is a union of the STATES, not a union of the people. Probably why its called "The United STATES of America" instead of "The People's Republic of America", huh?

 

[Chris]

I think so, no question.

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

Why would you ban the Senate? What purpose would that serve? It is the only body that insures that ALL states have an equal opportunity to have their concerns addressed by federal government on an EQUAL footing with every other state -because all states have the same number of Senators. The House exists as the representatives of the people of each state -the more people a state has, the more representatives they have in the House. But Senators exist as representatives of the STATE itself and all states have the equal and identical right to have their concerns addressed by federal government regardless of population. The concerns of California, New York and Florida are not the same as those of Wyoming, Nevada or even Rhode Island -and without the Senate, those states are totally screwed over and would never have its concerns addressed by federal government. There are times the concerns of states clash -but would cause significant, irreparable harm if a few densely populated and highly urbanized areas were making the decisions for the greater numbers of less densely populated, rural agricultural states.

Their representatives in the House already have the least influence anyway. Getting rid of the Senate insures the complete castration of all states but the most densely populated highly urbanized states. Federal government would be controlled only by densely populated largely urbanized states -at the expense of all other states. But the east and west coasts do not represent the majority of people living in this country though.

I never fail to be amazed by the people who haven't a clue how our own government works and seem to think we have a system that doesn't exist. Each state functions as a mini-country unto itself even while part of the union under one flag. You obviously spent much less time thinking this through than the founders did -who agonized for years about how to prevent power from becoming centralized in the hands of the most populous states which can only happen at the expense of all the other states. Our federal government is a union of the STATES, not a union of the people. Probably why its called "The United STATES of America" instead of "The People's Republic of America", huh?

Getting rid of the Senate would insure that each person in America would have equal representation in the legislature. As it is, the 800,000 people in Montana have the same political power as the 30 million people in California. That is wrong.

 

[DiveCon]

I think so, no question.

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

Why would you ban the Senate? What purpose would that serve? It is the only body that insures that ALL states have an equal opportunity to have their concerns addressed by federal government on an EQUAL footing with every other state -because all states have the same number of Senators. The House exists as the representatives of the people of each state -the more people a state has, the more representatives they have in the House. But Senators exist as representatives of the STATE itself and all states have the equal and identical right to have their concerns addressed by federal government regardless of population. The concerns of California, New York and Florida are not the same as those of Wyoming, Nevada or even Rhode Island -and without the Senate, those states are totally screwed over and would never have its concerns addressed by federal government. There are times the concerns of states clash -but would cause significant, irreparable harm if a few densely populated and highly urbanized areas were making the decisions for the greater numbers of less densely populated, rural agricultural states.

Their representatives in the House already have the least influence anyway. Getting rid of the Senate insures the complete castration of all states but the most densely populated highly urbanized states. Federal government would be controlled only by densely populated largely urbanized states -at the expense of all other states. But the east and west coasts do not represent the majority of people living in this country though.

I never fail to be amazed by the people who haven't a clue how our own government works and seem to think we have a system that doesn't exist. Each state functions as a mini-country unto itself even while part of the union under one flag. You obviously spent much less time thinking this through than the founders did -who agonized for years about how to prevent power from becoming centralized in the hands of the most populous states which can only happen at the expense of all the other states. Our federal government is a union of the STATES, not a union of the people. Probably why its called "The United STATES of America" instead of "The People's Republic of America", huh?

Getting rid of the Senate would insure that each person in America would have equal representation in the legislature. As it is, the 800,000 people in Montana have the same political power as the 30 million people in California. That is wrong.

no they don't, MORON
they have equal voice in the SENATE
the way it was intended as a check and balance

 

[frazzledgear]

Which gets back to the point: Why are arbitrary lines on a map more important than real flesh and blood human beings?

they are NOT arbitrary

Of course they are.

Did you ever take an American history class and actually pass it? They are not "arbitrary lines". Before a state joined as a state, it was an independent territory -essentially a nation unto itself and the lines were drawn by the people living in that territory who declared themselves to be a nation unto themselves, living under their own laws. All that happened BEFORE they ended up joining the Union under one flag. Joining the Union was an agreement between the territory applying for statehood and federal government under our Constitution -where the state agreed to forfeit very few, very specific powers to federal government in exchange for representation in federal government that would provide a common defense against enemies and establish treaties with foreign countries that applied to all states -and not much else. They did NOT agree to forfeit all powers to federal government and cannot be forced to do so. Our Constitution actually allows states to revoke their membership in the Union but the Civil War resulted in a federal government that will resort to violence to prevent it now -although the "right" of each state to secede still exists as part of our Constitution. States were unwilling to join without the ability of the people of that state to later change their mind and secede from the Union -which is why it was included. Our Constitution states that any power not specifically given to federal government belongs to either state government or to the people.

Each state joined the Union as the FULL equal of all the other states. And never agreed to become subsumed to the most densely populated states or to be ruled over by the most populated and highly urbanized areas of the nation and just abolish all state lines. It would mean doing away with an entire level of government -one that is far more responsive to the people than federal government is -because it is CLOSER to the people. Government that is closer to the people is more responsive -which is why anyone with brain would NOT want federal government in charge of any aspect of their life. The majority of states in this country are not densely populated urbanized states and when added together represent the majority of the population -and they don't want Californians for example, who screwed up their own state big time, doing the same to their states. If you are awaiting the day all state lines are abolished and Presidents are directly elected by the people instead of the states, it will be a long wait. The President is the sole elected office who is elected by the states and not directly elected by the people. Because he is President of the United STATES, not the people.

If the people of this country get to the point where they haven't a clue why we have the system of government we do and didn't take the time to learn what has made this nation unique among all others or why we have THE longest lasting continuous form of government in the world even though among the youngest of nations -then do they still deserve to keep it instead of letting it turn into just one more dim copy of an historically proven failure of a system?

 

[frazzledgear]

I think so, no question.

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

Why would you ban the Senate? What purpose would that serve? It is the only body that insures that ALL states have an equal opportunity to have their concerns addressed by federal government on an EQUAL footing with every other state -because all states have the same number of Senators. The House exists as the representatives of the people of each state -the more people a state has, the more representatives they have in the House. But Senators exist as representatives of the STATE itself and all states have the equal and identical right to have their concerns addressed by federal government regardless of population. The concerns of California, New York and Florida are not the same as those of Wyoming, Nevada or even Rhode Island -and without the Senate, those states are totally screwed over and would never have its concerns addressed by federal government. There are times the concerns of states clash -but would cause significant, irreparable harm if a few densely populated and highly urbanized areas were making the decisions for the greater numbers of less densely populated, rural agricultural states.

Their representatives in the House already have the least influence anyway. Getting rid of the Senate insures the complete castration of all states but the most densely populated highly urbanized states. Federal government would be controlled only by densely populated largely urbanized states -at the expense of all other states. But the east and west coasts do not represent the majority of people living in this country though.

I never fail to be amazed by the people who haven't a clue how our own government works and seem to think we have a system that doesn't exist. Each state functions as a mini-country unto itself even while part of the union under one flag. You obviously spent much less time thinking this through than the founders did -who agonized for years about how to prevent power from becoming centralized in the hands of the most populous states which can only happen at the expense of all the other states. Our federal government is a union of the STATES, not a union of the people. Probably why its called "The United STATES of America" instead of "The People's Republic of America", huh?

Getting rid of the Senate would insure that each person in America would have equal representation in the legislature. As it is, the 800,000 people in Montana have the same political power as the 30 million people in California. That is wrong.

Take a remedial US history class and get back to the rest of us when you actually understand how THIS system of government works instead of some imaginary one works. Your claim that the people of Montana have the same political power as those in California in federal legislature is WRONG bubba. The additional influence they have that reflects their more densely populated state is reflected in the House of Representatives -where the representatives are there representing the people of their state. The more people in their state, the more representatives they have in the House. The more representatives a state has in the House of Representatives, the more power and influence -higher population equals more power in the House.

But Senators are there to represent their entire STATE. And since all states are EQUAL under our Constitution, all states have the same number of Senators. Half of the state elects one Senator and the other half elects the other. Squalling that the states all have equal representation in ONE chamber of Congress while the other chamber reflects the population differences between those states is just ignorance at work. I guess the fact this is the United STATES also just zipped right over your head, huh? This may surprise you, but those aren't just meaningless words.

 

[Chris]

Why would you ban the Senate? What purpose would that serve? It is the only body that insures that ALL states have an equal opportunity to have their concerns addressed by federal government on an EQUAL footing with every other state -because all states have the same number of Senators. The House exists as the representatives of the people of each state -the more people a state has, the more representatives they have in the House. But Senators exist as representatives of the STATE itself and all states have the equal and identical right to have their concerns addressed by federal government regardless of population. The concerns of California, New York and Florida are not the same as those of Wyoming, Nevada or even Rhode Island -and without the Senate, those states are totally screwed over and would never have its concerns addressed by federal government. There are times the concerns of states clash -but would cause significant, irreparable harm if a few densely populated and highly urbanized areas were making the decisions for the greater numbers of less densely populated, rural agricultural states.

Their representatives in the House already have the least influence anyway. Getting rid of the Senate insures the complete castration of all states but the most densely populated highly urbanized states. Federal government would be controlled only by densely populated largely urbanized states -at the expense of all other states. But the east and west coasts do not represent the majority of people living in this country though.

I never fail to be amazed by the people who haven't a clue how our own government works and seem to think we have a system that doesn't exist. Each state functions as a mini-country unto itself even while part of the union under one flag. You obviously spent much less time thinking this through than the founders did -who agonized for years about how to prevent power from becoming centralized in the hands of the most populous states which can only happen at the expense of all the other states. Our federal government is a union of the STATES, not a union of the people. Probably why its called "The United STATES of America" instead of "The People's Republic of America", huh?

Getting rid of the Senate would insure that each person in America would have equal representation in the legislature. As it is, the 800,000 people in Montana have the same political power as the 30 million people in California. That is wrong.

Take a remedial US history class and get back to the rest of us when you actually understand how THIS system of government works instead of some imaginary one works. Your claim that the people of Montana have the same political power as those in California in federal legislature is WRONG bubba. The additional influence they have that reflects their more densely populated state is reflected in the House of Representatives -where the representatives are there representing the people of their state. The more people in their state, the more representatives they have in the House. The more representatives a state has in the House of Representatives, the more power and influence -higher population equals more power in the House.

But Senators are there to represent their entire STATE. And since all states are EQUAL under our Constitution, all states have the same number of Senators. Half of the state elects one Senator and the other half elects the other. Squalling that the states all have equal representation in ONE chamber of Congress while the other chamber reflects the population differences between those states is just ignorance at work. I guess the fact this is the United STATES also just zipped right over your head, huh? This may surprise you, but those aren't just meaningless words.

You are right. Those are meanlingless words.

The words that matter are - All Men Are Created Equal.

Not - people from Montana are more equal than people from California.

 

[DiveCon]

Why would you ban the Senate? What purpose would that serve? It is the only body that insures that ALL states have an equal opportunity to have their concerns addressed by federal government on an EQUAL footing with every other state -because all states have the same number of Senators. The House exists as the representatives of the people of each state -the more people a state has, the more representatives they have in the House. But Senators exist as representatives of the STATE itself and all states have the equal and identical right to have their concerns addressed by federal government regardless of population. The concerns of California, New York and Florida are not the same as those of Wyoming, Nevada or even Rhode Island -and without the Senate, those states are totally screwed over and would never have its concerns addressed by federal government. There are times the concerns of states clash -but would cause significant, irreparable harm if a few densely populated and highly urbanized areas were making the decisions for the greater numbers of less densely populated, rural agricultural states.

Their representatives in the House already have the least influence anyway. Getting rid of the Senate insures the complete castration of all states but the most densely populated highly urbanized states. Federal government would be controlled only by densely populated largely urbanized states -at the expense of all other states. But the east and west coasts do not represent the majority of people living in this country though.

I never fail to be amazed by the people who haven't a clue how our own government works and seem to think we have a system that doesn't exist. Each state functions as a mini-country unto itself even while part of the union under one flag. You obviously spent much less time thinking this through than the founders did -who agonized for years about how to prevent power from becoming centralized in the hands of the most populous states which can only happen at the expense of all the other states. Our federal government is a union of the STATES, not a union of the people. Probably why its called "The United STATES of America" instead of "The People's Republic of America", huh?

Getting rid of the Senate would insure that each person in America would have equal representation in the legislature. As it is, the 800,000 people in Montana have the same political power as the 30 million people in California. That is wrong.

Take a remedial US history class and get back to the rest of us when you actually understand how THIS system of government works instead of some imaginary one works. Your claim that the people of Montana have the same political power as those in California in federal legislature is WRONG bubba. The additional influence they have that reflects their more densely populated state is reflected in the House of Representatives -where the representatives are there representing the people of their state. The more people in their state, the more representatives they have in the House. The more representatives a state has in the House of Representatives, the more power and influence -higher population equals more power in the House.

But Senators are there to represent their entire STATE. And since all states are EQUAL under our Constitution, all states have the same number of Senators. Half of the state elects one Senator and the other half elects the other. Squalling that the states all have equal representation in ONE chamber of Congress while the other chamber reflects the population differences between those states is just ignorance at work. I guess the fact this is the United STATES also just zipped right over your head, huh? This may surprise you, but those aren't just meaningless words.

no, that bold part is incorrect
the WHOLE state votes for each senator

 

[DiveCon]

Getting rid of the Senate would insure that each person in America would have equal representation in the legislature. As it is, the 800,000 people in Montana have the same political power as the 30 million people in California. That is wrong.

Take a remedial US history class and get back to the rest of us when you actually understand how THIS system of government works instead of some imaginary one works. Your claim that the people of Montana have the same political power as those in California in federal legislature is WRONG bubba. The additional influence they have that reflects their more densely populated state is reflected in the House of Representatives -where the representatives are there representing the people of their state. The more people in their state, the more representatives they have in the House. The more representatives a state has in the House of Representatives, the more power and influence -higher population equals more power in the House.

But Senators are there to represent their entire STATE. And since all states are EQUAL under our Constitution, all states have the same number of Senators. Half of the state elects one Senator and the other half elects the other. Squalling that the states all have equal representation in ONE chamber of Congress while the other chamber reflects the population differences between those states is just ignorance at work. I guess the fact this is the United STATES also just zipped right over your head, huh? This may surprise you, but those aren't just meaningless words.

You are right. Those are meanlingless words.

The words that matter are - All Men Are Created Equal.

Not - people from Montana are more equal than people from California.

all states are equal in the senate

moron

 

[ihopehefails]

I think it should go back to being a body that represents state governments so to restore some much needed balance between the state and federal government. I know that many will say that it cuts out the people's direct influence over the federal government but we still have a house of representatives that can veto any legislation that the senate passes.

Also, the senate has certain functions such as selecting judges and passing treaties. When those roles are delegated to a direct popular vote it cuts the states out of any input of how court cases will be decided and what treaties will get signed.