The Senate, rather than being based on random lines drawn on a map should be based on

[dcraelin]

Its amazing how people just reflexively reject any change.

What is the rational behind the Senate?.....is is representation based on population?.....no

is it representation based on land area?.....no

is it representation based on economic potential.....partially....especially in the west...Texas and California being big exceptions
But the small eastern states have way to much power in the Senate based on that.

Why should RI have the same power in the Senate as California?.....it makes no sense no matter how you look at it.

Yes I realize the history of it...the "great" compromise....a compromise based on the petty parochial concerns. But hopefully we can change to a less irrational system.

It is based on the sovereignty of each state. The House is based on population,

sovereignty is an empty concept if it isnt based on some sort of logical rational. Why should RI have the same power in the Senate as California?...on the basis of population?..no, on the basis of land value?...no...on the basis of economic potential/ resource base?...no....

Like I said above...both Madison the father of the Constitution and Wilson one of the wisest of the founders, both had a problem with the inane makeup of the Senate.

State sovereignty was no empty concept in 1786. Nor is it today. Without equality in one of the houses of Congress, smaller states would never have joined the union.

both Madison and Wilson argued against that even at the convention. RI didnt want to join even with that provision but was forced to.... But times change....I doubt if things were made more equitable today whether they would leave. And sovereignty of a state is a different thing than individual sovereignty.

My proposal acknowledges that there is some legitimacy to the concept of basing part of the government on the economic base of a state. But there is no legitimacy to giving RI, Del NH VT etc. that same power as California, just because politics at the time was separated that way. ...Which as I show above wasnt really necessarily the case anyway as some of these were governed together for a time.

 

[BlindBoo]

Its amazing how people just reflexively reject any change.

What is the rational behind the Senate?.....is is representation based on population?.....no

is it representation based on land area?.....no

is it representation based on economic potential.....partially....especially in the west...Texas and California being big exceptions
But the small eastern states have way to much power in the Senate based on that.

Why should RI have the same power in the Senate as California?.....it makes no sense no matter how you look at it.

Yes I realize the history of it...the "great" compromise....a compromise based on the petty parochial concerns. But hopefully we can change to a less irrational system.

It is based on the sovereignty of each state. The House is based on population,

sovereignty is an empty concept if it isnt based on some sort of logical rational. Why should RI have the same power in the Senate as California?...on the basis of population?..no, on the basis of land value?...no...on the basis of economic potential/ resource base?...no....

Like I said above...both Madison the father of the Constitution and Wilson one of the wisest of the founders, both had a problem with the inane makeup of the Senate.

State sovereignty was no empty concept in 1786. Nor is it today. Without equality in one of the houses of Congress, smaller states would never have joined the union.

both Madison and Wilson argued against that even at the convention. RI didnt want to join even with that provision but was forced to.... But times change....I doubt if things were made more equitable today whether they would leave. And sovereignty of a state is a different thing than individual sovereignty.

My proposal acknowledges that there is some legitimacy to the concept of basing part of the government on the economic base of a state. But there is no legitimacy to giving RI, Del NH VT etc. that same power as California, just because politics at the time was separated that way. ...Which as I show above wasnt really necessarily the case anyway as some of these were governed together for a time.

Doesn't the House already give more clout to the larger states? The equality of the Senate balances the unequal representation of the House.

 

[dcraelin]

Its amazing how people just reflexively reject any change.

What is the rational behind the Senate?.....is is representation based on population?.....no

is it representation based on land area?.....no

is it representation based on economic potential.....partially....especially in the west...Texas and California being big exceptions
But the small eastern states have way to much power in the Senate based on that.

Why should RI have the same power in the Senate as California?.....it makes no sense no matter how you look at it.

Yes I realize the history of it...the "great" compromise....a compromise based on the petty parochial concerns. But hopefully we can change to a less irrational system.

It is based on the sovereignty of each state. The House is based on population,

sovereignty is an empty concept if it isnt based on some sort of logical rational. Why should RI have the same power in the Senate as California?...on the basis of population?..no, on the basis of land value?...no...on the basis of economic potential/ resource base?...no....

Like I said above...both Madison the father of the Constitution and Wilson one of the wisest of the founders, both had a problem with the inane makeup of the Senate.

State sovereignty was no empty concept in 1786. Nor is it today. Without equality in one of the houses of Congress, smaller states would never have joined the union.

both Madison and Wilson argued against that even at the convention. RI didnt want to join even with that provision but was forced to.... But times change....I doubt if things were made more equitable today whether they would leave. And sovereignty of a state is a different thing than individual sovereignty.

My proposal acknowledges that there is some legitimacy to the concept of basing part of the government on the economic base of a state. But there is no legitimacy to giving RI, Del NH VT etc. that same power as California, just because politics at the time was separated that way. ...Which as I show above wasnt really necessarily the case anyway as some of these were governed together for a time.

Doesn't the House already give more clout to the larger states? The equality of the Senate balances the unequal representation of the House.

the larger in population yes....but the Senate's haphazard layout means states like RI, DEL,VT, NH,CONN, are doubly blessed, equal representation with other states on the basis of population, but equal to small population states in the Senate. It doesnt balance at all.

 

[BlindBoo]

It is based on the sovereignty of each state. The House is based on population,

sovereignty is an empty concept if it isnt based on some sort of logical rational. Why should RI have the same power in the Senate as California?...on the basis of population?..no, on the basis of land value?...no...on the basis of economic potential/ resource base?...no....

Like I said above...both Madison the father of the Constitution and Wilson one of the wisest of the founders, both had a problem with the inane makeup of the Senate.

State sovereignty was no empty concept in 1786. Nor is it today. Without equality in one of the houses of Congress, smaller states would never have joined the union.

both Madison and Wilson argued against that even at the convention. RI didnt want to join even with that provision but was forced to.... But times change....I doubt if things were made more equitable today whether they would leave. And sovereignty of a state is a different thing than individual sovereignty.

My proposal acknowledges that there is some legitimacy to the concept of basing part of the government on the economic base of a state. But there is no legitimacy to giving RI, Del NH VT etc. that same power as California, just because politics at the time was separated that way. ...Which as I show above wasnt really necessarily the case anyway as some of these were governed together for a time.

Doesn't the House already give more clout to the larger states? The equality of the Senate balances the unequal representation of the House.

the larger in population yes....but the Senate's haphazard layout means states like RI, DEL,VT, NH,CONN, are doubly blessed, equal representation with other states on the basis of population, but equal to small population states in the Senate. It doesnt balance at all.

I think it does balance out. Consider that the larger states have more pull in the presidential elections as well.

 

[Agit8r]

good luck with that

 

[dcraelin]

sovereignty is an empty concept if it isnt based on some sort of logical rational. Why should RI have the same power in the Senate as California?...on the basis of population?..no, on the basis of land value?...no...on the basis of economic potential/ resource base?...no....

Like I said above...both Madison the father of the Constitution and Wilson one of the wisest of the founders, both had a problem with the inane makeup of the Senate.

State sovereignty was no empty concept in 1786. Nor is it today. Without equality in one of the houses of Congress, smaller states would never have joined the union.

both Madison and Wilson argued against that even at the convention. RI didnt want to join even with that provision but was forced to.... But times change....I doubt if things were made more equitable today whether they would leave. And sovereignty of a state is a different thing than individual sovereignty.

My proposal acknowledges that there is some legitimacy to the concept of basing part of the government on the economic base of a state. But there is no legitimacy to giving RI, Del NH VT etc. that same power as California, just because politics at the time was separated that way. ...Which as I show above wasnt really necessarily the case anyway as some of these were governed together for a time.

Doesn't the House already give more clout to the larger states? The equality of the Senate balances the unequal representation of the House.

the larger in population yes....but the Senate's haphazard layout means states like RI, DEL,VT, NH,CONN, are doubly blessed, equal representation with other states on the basis of population, but equal to small population states in the Senate. It doesnt balance at all.

I think it does balance out. Consider that the larger states have more pull in the presidential elections as well.

well we disagree I guess...........people just have to remember that if anything passes the Senate by the votes of Senators from those small states it is essentially illegitimate.

 

[dcraelin]

good luck with that

lots of people are talking a new constitutional convention...this is a change that should be made if a general revamp is wanted.
but if not, I wish more people would just understand Senate legislation passed with small state Senators is essentially illegitimate.

 

[M14 Shooter]

well we disagree I guess...........people just have to remember that if anything passes the Senate by the votes of Senators from those small states it is essentially illegitimate.

^^^
Complete inanity

 

[M14 Shooter]

good luck with that

lots of people are talking a new constitutional convention...this is a change that should be made if a general revamp is wanted.
but if not, I wish more people would just understand Senate legislation passed with small state Senators is essentially illegitimate.

^^^
Complete inanity

 

[BlindBoo]

State sovereignty was no empty concept in 1786. Nor is it today. Without equality in one of the houses of Congress, smaller states would never have joined the union.

both Madison and Wilson argued against that even at the convention. RI didnt want to join even with that provision but was forced to.... But times change....I doubt if things were made more equitable today whether they would leave. And sovereignty of a state is a different thing than individual sovereignty.

My proposal acknowledges that there is some legitimacy to the concept of basing part of the government on the economic base of a state. But there is no legitimacy to giving RI, Del NH VT etc. that same power as California, just because politics at the time was separated that way. ...Which as I show above wasnt really necessarily the case anyway as some of these were governed together for a time.

Doesn't the House already give more clout to the larger states? The equality of the Senate balances the unequal representation of the House.

the larger in population yes....but the Senate's haphazard layout means states like RI, DEL,VT, NH,CONN, are doubly blessed, equal representation with other states on the basis of population, but equal to small population states in the Senate. It doesnt balance at all.

I think it does balance out. Consider that the larger states have more pull in the presidential elections as well.

well we disagree I guess...........people just have to remember that if anything passes the Senate by the votes of Senators from those small states it is essentially illegitimate.

I do disagree with that too. If it passes the Senate regardless of who, from what state votes, it's legitimate.

 

[dcraelin]

both Madison and Wilson argued against that even at the convention. RI didnt want to join even with that provision but was forced to.... But times change....I doubt if things were made more equitable today whether they would leave. And sovereignty of a state is a different thing than individual sovereignty.

My proposal acknowledges that there is some legitimacy to the concept of basing part of the government on the economic base of a state. But there is no legitimacy to giving RI, Del NH VT etc. that same power as California, just because politics at the time was separated that way. ...Which as I show above wasnt really necessarily the case anyway as some of these were governed together for a time.

Doesn't the House already give more clout to the larger states? The equality of the Senate balances the unequal representation of the House.

the larger in population yes....but the Senate's haphazard layout means states like RI, DEL,VT, NH,CONN, are doubly blessed, equal representation with other states on the basis of population, but equal to small population states in the Senate. It doesnt balance at all.

I think it does balance out. Consider that the larger states have more pull in the presidential elections as well.

well we disagree I guess...........people just have to remember that if anything passes the Senate by the votes of Senators from those small states it is essentially illegitimate.

I do disagree with that too. If it passes the Senate regardless of who, from what state votes, it's legitimate.

well in a legalistic way sure....but I mean in a basic legitimate way.....those states should not have that clout, it is an accident of how things were governed shortly after the declaration of independence...even the British realized they should not have been separate entities.....(my proposal would leave them separate, but would give them less voting power)

 

[Dana7360]

The voting power of Each Senator, rather than being based

on random lines drawn on a map, should be based on

the renewable natural resource production of each

state, using a type of Economic base analysis.

I'm sorry but you need to go back and learn about our senate.

Senators aren't elected and run for a district in a state.

The whole state votes on the senate. It's the House of Representatives that has a state broken up in districts and they run for that one district in that state.

Senators run and are elected by the whole state.

 

[Dana7360]

this has nothing to do with a pure republic/direct democracy really ....but that has worked ...works fine as a national option in Switzerland and has for over 600 years.

It is only in two (2) tiny little Cantons.

Spare me the lecture.

There's no rational basis for your idea, much less a compelling reason for such a massive change.

Its far more rational than the system we have now...

... where the senate represents the people of a given state?

YOu cut out the part where I said based on a King's determinations in the east...and who knows out west...
Why did you cut that part out?.....because you cant answer for its rational

Because it is irrelevant and full of ignorance
13 states had a relationship to "the king", a meaningless distinction that no way undermines the legitimacy of the senate as it stands today.

Oh yes it does, it means New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont, all teeny little states have the same power in the Senate as California....a state which feeds the nation......it makes no rational sense

They already do.

Every state has the same amount of senators representing their state in the Senate.

The constitution says that each state will send 2 senators to represent them in the senate. The whole state votes not just one portion of the state.

 

[dcraelin]

The voting power of Each Senator, rather than being based

on random lines drawn on a map, should be based on

the renewable natural resource production of each

state, using a type of Economic base analysis.

I'm sorry but you need to go back and learn about our senate.

Senators aren't elected and run for a district in a state.

The whole state votes on the senate. It's the House of Representatives that has a state broken up in districts and they run for that one district in that state.

Senators run and are elected by the whole state.

yes, I know that, my point being that those states aren't drawn up equally,...so should not have an equal voice in the senate. they are an accident of the way things were drawn up at the time of the founding. and even then or in that era, as noted above, some were governed by the same governor as an adjacent state.

 

[Dana7360]

Its amazing how people just reflexively reject any change.

What is the rational behind the Senate?.....is is representation based on population?.....no

is it representation based on land area?.....no

is it representation based on economic potential.....partially....especially in the west...Texas and California being big exceptions
But the small eastern states have way to much power in the Senate based on that.

Why should RI have the same power in the Senate as California?.....it makes no sense no matter how you look at it.

Yes I realize the history of it...the "great" compromise....a compromise based on the petty parochial concerns. But hopefully we can change to a less irrational system.

You're going to have to change the constitution. The constitution says that every state sends the same amount of senators to the senate. The only way to change that is to amend the constitution.

Good luck with that.

 

[dcraelin]

Its amazing how people just reflexively reject any change.

What is the rational behind the Senate?.....is is representation based on population?.....no

is it representation based on land area?.....no

is it representation based on economic potential.....partially....especially in the west...Texas and California being big exceptions
But the small eastern states have way to much power in the Senate based on that.

Why should RI have the same power in the Senate as California?.....it makes no sense no matter how you look at it.

Yes I realize the history of it...the "great" compromise....a compromise based on the petty parochial concerns. But hopefully we can change to a less irrational system.

You're going to have to change the constitution. The constitution says that every state sends the same amount of senators to the senate. The only way to change that is to amend the constitution.

Good luck with that.

Well my proposal doesnt change the amount of Senators sent. ...Even then it would take a change in the Constitution yes....
a long shot I think but worth discussing because perhaps people will realize the unfairness of the set-up of the Senate...that these small state Senators carry clout/ voting power they should not.

one example of an area it may have negatively affected in part is the TARP fiasco. which did not pass initially in the House and was, I think illegitimately, illegally revived in the Senate...and would be interesting to see if the small state Senators pushed it over the top...

 

[BlindBoo]

Doesn't the House already give more clout to the larger states? The equality of the Senate balances the unequal representation of the House.

the larger in population yes....but the Senate's haphazard layout means states like RI, DEL,VT, NH,CONN, are doubly blessed, equal representation with other states on the basis of population, but equal to small population states in the Senate. It doesnt balance at all.

I think it does balance out. Consider that the larger states have more pull in the presidential elections as well.

well we disagree I guess...........people just have to remember that if anything passes the Senate by the votes of Senators from those small states it is essentially illegitimate.

I do disagree with that too. If it passes the Senate regardless of who, from what state votes, it's legitimate.

well in a legalistic way sure....but I mean in a basic legitimate way.....those states should not have that clout, it is an accident of how things were governed shortly after the declaration of independence...even the British realized they should not have been separate entities.....(my proposal would leave them separate, but would give them less voting power)

I just disagree with your opinion then.

 

[Toro]

It should be based on the success of their sports teams.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It should be based on the success of their sports teams.

This standard is at least as valid as that offered in the OP.

 

[dcraelin]

watched "how the states got their shapes" episodes trying to find explanations for the teeny eastern seaboard states....wasnt; really that helpful...but one episode did say some of it was based on religious differences.... So Delaware was mostly protestant and Maryland was largely Catholic ( I think) so Delaware was carved out of it...and for a time was governed from Pennsylvania.....Said if I remember that Massachusetts once included Connecticut, RI,Vermont, Maine, and NewHampshire.....it should have stayed that way....these states now have way to much power in the Senate...

Any vote in the Senate which passes based on the votes of these states is essentially illegitimate.

The fact that Delaware and Pennsylvania shared the same governor was not unique. From 1703 to 1738, New York and New Jersey shared a governor.[17] Massachusetts and New Hampshire also shared a governor for some time.[18]

Im not saying that now we combine these states (tho it would probably be a lot more efficient) but that maintaining Their separate votes in the Senate is unfair by any measure.

again


Any vote in the Senate which passes based on the votes of these states is essentially illegitimate.