Senate's 46 Dems Got 20 Million More Votes Than Its 54 Republicans

[peach174]

And for the thousandth time you are wrong.
That is a fact stated above about our Government.

Our government is a representative democracy.

That is the only fact you need to know.

Representative democracy (also indirect democracy) is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.

If we were a representative democracy then we would not have the 3 separate powers of Government and giving the minority rights.

See the 17th amendment. The senate no longer provides minority rights through the state legislatures, it now provides majority rights of each state individually. Thus as the majority migrate to said successful states, the majority is able to suck on the teat of the wealth of the minority of that state.

The Constitution speaks of the role of government serving as a republic, which is why we have two senators associated with each state to pass laws based on equal representation and not simply a majority where more populated states get the upper hand. The House representation is for the needs of the will of the people, which makes the House and Senate a true checks and balance when it was established. The Legislative branch and the executive are designed with the purpose of creating a checks and balance with a dependency of one to the other in establishing laws. No single branch should have the ultimate power if they follow those powers delegated specifically to them under the Constitution. It's that representation "checks and balance" of the legislative, as well as within all three branches of government, set under a Constitutional framework which makes us a Republic and not a Democracy.

Wrong. For the thousandth time.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article IV Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.


Have you ever actually READ the Constitution? Seriously, maybe you need to.

For the thousandth time, 'democracy' and 'republic' are not mutually exclusive. A democratic republic is a representative democracy.

A representative democracy is a democracy.

Yes they are exclusive.
Our Republic gives the minorities rights and individauls rights, a representaive democray does not.
A Representative Democracy is like Britain’s Government.

That's nonsense.

I guess then this is fiction:

The Human Rights Act Liberty

That Bill gives rights as a collective.

America gives rights to the minority like Abortion rights when they were a minority in the 70's.

 

[Redfish]

On Tuesday, 33 US senators elected in November will be sworn in by Vice President Joe Biden — including 12 who are new to the chamber. The class includes 22 Republicans and 11 Democrats, a big reason why the GOP has a 54-46 majority in the Senate overall.

But here's a crazy fact: those 46 Democrats got more votes than the 54 Republicans across the 2010, 2012, and 2014 elections. According to Nathan Nicholson, a researcher at the voting reform advocacy group FairVote, "the 46 Democratic caucus members in the 114th Congress received a total of 67.8 million votes in winning their seats, while the 54 Republican caucus members received 47.1 million votes."

Here's what that looks like in chart form:

More: The Senate x27 s 46 Democrats got 20 million more votes than its 54 Republicans - Vox

Just another reason why 2016 should be great for Democrats!

doesn't matter. YOU LOST, deal with it.

 

[Redfish]

And for the thousandth time you are wrong.
That is a fact stated above about our Government.

Our government is a representative democracy.

That is the only fact you need to know.

Representative democracy (also indirect democracy) is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.

If we were a representative democracy then we would not have the 3 separate powers of Government and giving the minority rights.

See the 17th amendment. The senate no longer provides minority rights through the state legislatures, it now provides majority rights of each state individually. Thus as the majority migrate to said successful states, the majority is able to suck on the teat of the wealth of the minority of that state.

The Constitution speaks of the role of government serving as a republic, which is why we have two senators associated with each state to pass laws based on equal representation and not simply a majority where more populated states get the upper hand. The House representation is for the needs of the will of the people, which makes the House and Senate a true checks and balance when it was established. The Legislative branch and the executive are designed with the purpose of creating a checks and balance with a dependency of one to the other in establishing laws. No single branch should have the ultimate power if they follow those powers delegated specifically to them under the Constitution. It's that representation "checks and balance" of the legislative, as well as within all three branches of government, set under a Constitutional framework which makes us a Republic and not a Democracy.

Wrong. For the thousandth time.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article IV Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.


Have you ever actually READ the Constitution? Seriously, maybe you need to.

For the thousandth time, 'democracy' and 'republic' are not mutually exclusive. A democratic republic is a representative democracy.

A representative democracy is a democracy.

Yes they are exclusive.
Our Republic gives the minorities rights and individauls rights, a representaive democray does not.
A Representative Democracy is like Britain’s Government.

That's nonsense.

I guess then this is fiction:

The Human Rights Act Liberty

all rights in a society are established by majority vote. The constitution was put in place by a majority vote. All statutes are passed by majority vote. There is no such thing as a minority establishing its own rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Our government is a representative democracy.

That is the only fact you need to know.

Representative democracy (also indirect democracy) is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.

If we were a representative democracy then we would not have the 3 separate powers of Government and giving the minority rights.

See the 17th amendment. The senate no longer provides minority rights through the state legislatures, it now provides majority rights of each state individually. Thus as the majority migrate to said successful states, the majority is able to suck on the teat of the wealth of the minority of that state.

Wrong. For the thousandth time.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article IV Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.


Have you ever actually READ the Constitution? Seriously, maybe you need to.

For the thousandth time, 'democracy' and 'republic' are not mutually exclusive. A democratic republic is a representative democracy.

A representative democracy is a democracy.

Yes they are exclusive.
Our Republic gives the minorities rights and individauls rights, a representaive democray does not.
A Representative Democracy is like Britain’s Government.

That's nonsense.

I guess then this is fiction:

The Human Rights Act Liberty

all rights in a society are established by majority vote. The constitution was put in place by a majority vote. All statutes are passed by majority vote. There is no such thing as a minority establishing its own rights.

You're agreeing with me now and you don't even know it.

 

[Redfish]

If we were a representative democracy then we would not have the 3 separate powers of Government and giving the minority rights.

See the 17th amendment. The senate no longer provides minority rights through the state legislatures, it now provides majority rights of each state individually. Thus as the majority migrate to said successful states, the majority is able to suck on the teat of the wealth of the minority of that state.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article IV Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.


Have you ever actually READ the Constitution? Seriously, maybe you need to.

For the thousandth time, 'democracy' and 'republic' are not mutually exclusive. A democratic republic is a representative democracy.

A representative democracy is a democracy.

Yes they are exclusive.
Our Republic gives the minorities rights and individauls rights, a representaive democray does not.
A Representative Democracy is like Britain’s Government.

That's nonsense.

I guess then this is fiction:

The Human Rights Act Liberty

all rights in a society are established by majority vote. The constitution was put in place by a majority vote. All statutes are passed by majority vote. There is no such thing as a minority establishing its own rights.

You're agreeing with me now and you don't even know it.

No, you are claiming that because some dem districts have more voters than some GOP districts that that means something as to where the country is politically. Its a bullshit position, but if it makes you able to accept your massive congressional loss, go with it.

 

[regent]

The reason this happens is look at the red/blue map. The cities are controlled by the democrats that is for sure. Why they are is anyone's guess considering what the democrats have done to them. So naturally democrats elected from those districts are going to receive a large share of the vote.

But keep trying, you may actually convince someone that it wasn't an ass whooping that the left received.

I think it's because city dwellers are removed more from self independence.
The city governments does their trash and sewers and water and is collected by their taxes.
This alienists them from self responsibilities
Rural dwellers have to take care of their own septic tanks at their own expense, hire independent trash collectors (entrepreneurs) or take their trash to the county dumps themselves and maintain their wells also at their expense.

Perhaps it is then the city dwellers that make their autos, their trash haulers, the pumps for their wells and so on. The primary difference is that the city dwellers are more indifferent to their neighbors needs and welfare so a little more government is required. Republicans are much more prone to vote and off-year elections are up for grabs.

We are a democracy because the power to change the Constitution still rests in the hands of the People, which is what a democracy is.

The assumption that a state with a small population should have its People be given disproportionate power in the federal government makes no sense,

but the nature of the colonies in the 18th century made the task of uniting them one that required some ultimately nonsensical contrivances.

With due respect, our nation is a Republic NOT a Democracy.


"The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government."

- CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES

source: The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

There is no merit to having a government where a minority of representatives can thwart the will of the majority.

That is simply a formula for dysfunction.

The Constitution speaks of the role of government serving as a republic, which is why we have two senators associated with each state to pass laws based on equal representation and not simply a majority where more populated states get the upper hand. The House representation is for the needs of the will of the people, which makes the House and Senate a true checks and balance when it was established. The Legislative branch and the executive are designed with the purpose of creating a checks and balance with a dependency of one to the other in establishing laws. No single branch should have the ultimate power if they follow those powers delegated specifically to them under the Constitution. It's that representation "checks and balance" of the legislative, as well as within all three branches of government, set under a Constitutional framework which makes us a Republic and not a Democracy.

Wrong. For the thousandth time.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article IV Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.


Have you ever actually READ the Constitution? Seriously, maybe you need to.

Republic has more than one meaning, and the Constitution does not define republic. In addition it guarantees the states a republican form not the United States. How many republics did the USSR have?

 

[NYcarbineer]

See the 17th amendment. The senate no longer provides minority rights through the state legislatures, it now provides majority rights of each state individually. Thus as the majority migrate to said successful states, the majority is able to suck on the teat of the wealth of the minority of that state.

For the thousandth time, 'democracy' and 'republic' are not mutually exclusive. A democratic republic is a representative democracy.

A representative democracy is a democracy.

Yes they are exclusive.
Our Republic gives the minorities rights and individauls rights, a representaive democray does not.
A Representative Democracy is like Britain’s Government.

That's nonsense.

I guess then this is fiction:

The Human Rights Act Liberty

all rights in a society are established by majority vote. The constitution was put in place by a majority vote. All statutes are passed by majority vote. There is no such thing as a minority establishing its own rights.

You're agreeing with me now and you don't even know it.

No, you are claiming that because some dem districts have more voters than some GOP districts that that means something as to where the country is politically. Its a bullshit position, but if it makes you able to accept your massive congressional loss, go with it.

What an asinine irrelevant response.

 

[OKTexas]

Then get out. Move to canada.

That's because we are a Constitutional Republic not a democracy.
Senators represent their States, the House represents their people from each State.

We are a democracy because the power to change the Constitution still rests in the hands of the People, which is what a democracy is.

The assumption that a state with a small population should have its People be given disproportionate power in the federal government makes no sense,

but the nature of the colonies in the 18th century made the task of uniting them one that required some ultimately nonsensical contrivances.

With due respect, our nation is a Republic NOT a Democracy.


"The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government."

- CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES

source: The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

There is no merit to having a government where a minority of representatives can thwart the will of the majority.

That is simply a formula for dysfunction.

Dysfunctional no, slow, deliberate, requiring consensus, yes. That's exactly what the founders intended.

Who cares what the founders intended? This is the 21st century.

Well commie, if you don't like the supreme law of the land, work to change it. Until you get that done just shut your commie mouth and stop the whining.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong. For the thousandth time.

And for the thousandth time you are wrong.
That is a fact stated above about our Government.

Our government is a representative democracy.

That is the only fact you need to know.

Representative democracy (also indirect democracy) is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.

ROFL where do you get this shit?

Our government is a Federal Constitutional Republic.

representative democracy is the method of lawmaking we use, as per our constitution, and the constitutions of the various States.

You say, "our government is a Federal Constitutional Republic." I would say it started as a Federal Constitutional Republic and has been heading to a Federal Democracy ever since.

You say, "representative democracy is the method of lawmaking we use, as per our constitution, and the constitutions of the various States." I say the federal constitution has been radically changed thus fundamentally changing the method of our lawmaking to a dominant federal system ruled by our sitting president through his department of injustice.

You're forgetting the 10s of thousands of bureaucrats that are making rules that have never received a vote.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong. For the thousandth time.

And for the thousandth time you are wrong.
That is a fact stated above about our Government.

Our government is a representative democracy.

That is the only fact you need to know.

Representative democracy (also indirect democracy) is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.

If we were a representative democracy then we would not have the 3 separate powers of Government and giving the minority rights.

See the 17th amendment. The senate no longer provides minority rights through the state legislatures, it now provides majority rights of each state individually. Thus as the majority migrate to said successful states, the majority is able to suck on the teat of the wealth of the minority of that state.

Didn't the Senate originally represent the legislature of each state, which represented the majority of said State, be it by direct population or by county breakup?

All the 17th did was skip the middleman, which does result in senators that can be from a different party than that of the legislature.

The 17th Amendment did a lot more than just skip the middleman, it removed the State legislators control over the actions of a senator. The senate can now be bought by out of state money which basically removes any loyality to the State.

 

[peach174]

The reason this happens is look at the red/blue map. The cities are controlled by the democrats that is for sure. Why they are is anyone's guess considering what the democrats have done to them. So naturally democrats elected from those districts are going to receive a large share of the vote.

But keep trying, you may actually convince someone that it wasn't an ass whooping that the left received.

I think it's because city dwellers are removed more from self independence.
The city governments does their trash and sewers and water and is collected by their taxes.
This alienists them from self responsibilities
Rural dwellers have to take care of their own septic tanks at their own expense, hire independent trash collectors (entrepreneurs) or take their trash to the county dumps themselves and maintain their wells also at their expense.

Perhaps it is then the city dwellers that make their autos, their trash haulers, the pumps for their wells and so on. The primary difference is that the city dwellers are more indifferent to their neighbors needs and welfare so a little more government is required. Republicans are much more prone to vote and off-year elections are up for grabs.

With due respect, our nation is a Republic NOT a Democracy.


"The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government."

- CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES

source: The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

There is no merit to having a government where a minority of representatives can thwart the will of the majority.

That is simply a formula for dysfunction.

The Constitution speaks of the role of government serving as a republic, which is why we have two senators associated with each state to pass laws based on equal representation and not simply a majority where more populated states get the upper hand. The House representation is for the needs of the will of the people, which makes the House and Senate a true checks and balance when it was established. The Legislative branch and the executive are designed with the purpose of creating a checks and balance with a dependency of one to the other in establishing laws. No single branch should have the ultimate power if they follow those powers delegated specifically to them under the Constitution. It's that representation "checks and balance" of the legislative, as well as within all three branches of government, set under a Constitutional framework which makes us a Republic and not a Democracy.

Wrong. For the thousandth time.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article IV Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.


Have you ever actually READ the Constitution? Seriously, maybe you need to.

Republic has more than one meaning, and the Constitution does not define republic. In addition it guarantees the states a republican form not the United States. How many republics did the USSR have?

Our Constitution is for the Federal and the States. It is the law of the land.
It most certainly does define what type of republic we have, it lists the specific duties of the Federal Government.

 

[martybegan]

And for the thousandth time you are wrong.
That is a fact stated above about our Government.

Our government is a representative democracy.

That is the only fact you need to know.

Representative democracy (also indirect democracy) is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.

If we were a representative democracy then we would not have the 3 separate powers of Government and giving the minority rights.

See the 17th amendment. The senate no longer provides minority rights through the state legislatures, it now provides majority rights of each state individually. Thus as the majority migrate to said successful states, the majority is able to suck on the teat of the wealth of the minority of that state.

Didn't the Senate originally represent the legislature of each state, which represented the majority of said State, be it by direct population or by county breakup?

All the 17th did was skip the middleman, which does result in senators that can be from a different party than that of the legislature.

The 17th Amendment did a lot more than just skip the middleman, it removed the State legislators control over the actions of a senator. The senate can now be bought by out of state money which basically removes any loyality to the State.

That affect is part of it, true. The person can feel more loyalty to the national party than to the state party without the serious consequences seen pre 17th amendment.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong. They used to be protect our rights, see the 14th amendment and 16th amendment, for now the Constitution has been re-written to explicitly take away our rights to life, liberty, property, and income.

The 14th Amendment was established under the guidelines given under the Constitution, not a judge making an attempt to write legislation which it wasn't granted specific powers to do so. We have an equal separation of powers, and specific constitutional rules dictating procedures for legislation and ratification,. It's all found within its Articles written by our Founders, how our government is to function.

That's a lie. The 14th Amendment was passed only through threat of death at the point of cannons.

That's what the South got for the whole pesky "rebellion" thing, and for indicating they would do an end run around the 13th amendment.

Ayup. Our government declared itself slave owner of every man woman and child to make sure no one could own a slave besides them.

The intent was to pass down the freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights to people in the States. The result has been to limit freedoms as well, based on a sense of fairness.

The amendment is fine, its the judges that have been fucked up.

Actually the bill of rights declared rights that already existed and prohibited the federal government from screwing with them. The first 5 words of the 1st Amendment are, "Congress shall make no law".

 

[martybegan]

The 14th Amendment was established under the guidelines given under the Constitution, not a judge making an attempt to write legislation which it wasn't granted specific powers to do so. We have an equal separation of powers, and specific constitutional rules dictating procedures for legislation and ratification,. It's all found within its Articles written by our Founders, how our government is to function.

That's a lie. The 14th Amendment was passed only through threat of death at the point of cannons.

That's what the South got for the whole pesky "rebellion" thing, and for indicating they would do an end run around the 13th amendment.

Ayup. Our government declared itself slave owner of every man woman and child to make sure no one could own a slave besides them.

The intent was to pass down the freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights to people in the States. The result has been to limit freedoms as well, based on a sense of fairness.

The amendment is fine, its the judges that have been fucked up.

Actually the bill of rights declared rights that already existed and prohibited the federal government from screwing with them. The first 5 words of the 1st Amendment are, "Congress shall make no law".

Let me clarify. I agree certain freedoms/rights are inherent. What the constitution via the bill of rights does is list rights explicitly either granted to the people, more directly, what rights the government is forbidden to screw with. In the case of the original bill of rights, this was directed at congress. The 14th amendment was designed to extend this to the States. While I agree with the concept, the execution has unfortunately been not as agreeable.

 

[Redfish]

Yes they are exclusive.
Our Republic gives the minorities rights and individauls rights, a representaive democray does not.
A Representative Democracy is like Britain’s Government.

That's nonsense.

I guess then this is fiction:

The Human Rights Act Liberty

all rights in a society are established by majority vote. The constitution was put in place by a majority vote. All statutes are passed by majority vote. There is no such thing as a minority establishing its own rights.

You're agreeing with me now and you don't even know it.

No, you are claiming that because some dem districts have more voters than some GOP districts that that means something as to where the country is politically. Its a bullshit position, but if it makes you able to accept your massive congressional loss, go with it.

What an asinine irrelevant response.

sorry, bubba, but the truth is always relevant.

 

[Redfish]

That's a lie. The 14th Amendment was passed only through threat of death at the point of cannons.

That's what the South got for the whole pesky "rebellion" thing, and for indicating they would do an end run around the 13th amendment.

Ayup. Our government declared itself slave owner of every man woman and child to make sure no one could own a slave besides them.

The intent was to pass down the freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights to people in the States. The result has been to limit freedoms as well, based on a sense of fairness.

The amendment is fine, its the judges that have been fucked up.

Actually the bill of rights declared rights that already existed and prohibited the federal government from screwing with them. The first 5 words of the 1st Amendment are, "Congress shall make no law".

Let me clarify. I agree certain freedoms/rights are inherent. What the constitution via the bill of rights does is list rights explicitly either granted to the people, more directly, what rights the government is forbidden to screw with. In the case of the original bill of rights, this was directed at congress. The 14th amendment was designed to extend this to the States. While I agree with the concept, the execution has unfortunately been not as agreeable.

certain rights are inherent because a society believes them to be. Those rights are made law by a majority vote of the society.

 

[martybegan]

That's what the South got for the whole pesky "rebellion" thing, and for indicating they would do an end run around the 13th amendment.

Ayup. Our government declared itself slave owner of every man woman and child to make sure no one could own a slave besides them.

The intent was to pass down the freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights to people in the States. The result has been to limit freedoms as well, based on a sense of fairness.

The amendment is fine, its the judges that have been fucked up.

Actually the bill of rights declared rights that already existed and prohibited the federal government from screwing with them. The first 5 words of the 1st Amendment are, "Congress shall make no law".

Let me clarify. I agree certain freedoms/rights are inherent. What the constitution via the bill of rights does is list rights explicitly either granted to the people, more directly, what rights the government is forbidden to screw with. In the case of the original bill of rights, this was directed at congress. The 14th amendment was designed to extend this to the States. While I agree with the concept, the execution has unfortunately been not as agreeable.

certain rights are inherent because a society believes them to be. Those rights are made law by a majority vote of the society.

Actually in the case of the US Federal Government 2/3 of both houses, and 3/4 of the States. Amendments enshrine rights, laws do not because of the ease of their repeal.

 

[kaz]

Somebody give him a civics lesson.

You mean the part about gerrymandering?

How do you gerrymander in the Senate?

 

[kaz]

But here's a crazy fact: those 46 Democrats got more votes than the 54 Republicans across the 2010, 2012, and 2014 elections

#WhoGivesAShit

 

[Redfish]

Ayup. Our government declared itself slave owner of every man woman and child to make sure no one could own a slave besides them.

The intent was to pass down the freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights to people in the States. The result has been to limit freedoms as well, based on a sense of fairness.

The amendment is fine, its the judges that have been fucked up.

Actually the bill of rights declared rights that already existed and prohibited the federal government from screwing with them. The first 5 words of the 1st Amendment are, "Congress shall make no law".

Let me clarify. I agree certain freedoms/rights are inherent. What the constitution via the bill of rights does is list rights explicitly either granted to the people, more directly, what rights the government is forbidden to screw with. In the case of the original bill of rights, this was directed at congress. The 14th amendment was designed to extend this to the States. While I agree with the concept, the execution has unfortunately been not as agreeable.

certain rights are inherent because a society believes them to be. Those rights are made law by a majority vote of the society.

Actually in the case of the US Federal Government 2/3 of both houses, and 3/4 of the States. Amendments enshrine rights, laws do not because of the ease of their repeal.

OK, technically correct. But societies decide what is to be considered as "rights". Some places in feudal europe it was the lord's right to bed a virgin before her wedding. In some tribes in New Guinea a bride must give the future husband's family a pig for the "right" to marry.