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

[dcraelin]

so u should want no Senate at all

How did you pull that out of my post. That is not based on anything I have said thus far.

"government exists for the people"....

And?

That does not preclude a senate from existing one bit.
Reading comprehension.

The Senate gives unequal "representation", because the population of the states differs.

???

?? we have the house of reps for that,so your suggesting places like NY have what 6 or 7 senators,yet ND only get 1 or 2 ?

I dont know how it would break down...based on renewable resources; timber, farming, fishing, my guess it would be near the same in regards to NY and ND

 

[Siete]

the senate is fine just like it is. The Republicans are a moot point in our government ... they talk real big and act real LITTLE ...

 

[dcraelin]

so u should want no Senate at all

How did you pull that out of my post. That is not based on anything I have said thus far.

"government exists for the people"....

And?

That does not preclude a senate from existing one bit.
Reading comprehension.

The Senate gives unequal "representation", because the population of the states differs.

You are still floundering. That does not mean that the government does not represent the people.
Do you understand what the term ‘represent’ means?

yes yes, ..most people would say it does harm "representation"

 

[dcraelin]

the senate is fine just like it is. The Republicans are a moot point in our government ... they talk real big and act real LITTLE ...

This isn't a partisan proposal....just attempts to formulate a more rational Senate.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

You fail to understand that the US is made up of 50 sovereign states, not simple areas drawn on a map.

NO, I understand that....that is why I'm not suggesting new states, just a change in voting power...and probably not much of one at that.....the later states where probably sized somewhat with these considerations in mind.

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

the senate is fine just like it is. The Republicans are a moot point in our government ... they talk real big and act real LITTLE ...

This isn't a partisan proposal....just attempts to formulate a more rational Senate.

That's easy:
Repeal the 17th amendment.

 

[Siete]

the senate is fine just like it is. The Republicans are a moot point in our government ... they talk real big and act real LITTLE ...

This isn't a partisan proposal....just attempts to formulate a more rational Senate.

I get that, What I didn't get in the op was the keyword "renewable" ... mea culpa.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

NO, I understand that....that is why I'm not suggesting new states, just a change in voting power...and probably not much of one at that.....the later states where probably sized somewhat with these considerations in mind.

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

 

[FA_Q2]

How did you pull that out of my post. That is not based on anything I have said thus far.

"government exists for the people"....

And?

That does not preclude a senate from existing one bit.
Reading comprehension.

The Senate gives unequal "representation", because the population of the states differs.

You are still floundering. That does not mean that the government does not represent the people.
Do you understand what the term ‘represent’ means?

yes yes, ..most people would say it does harm "representation"

No, actually most would not but that has nothing to do with the statement that the government represents the people.
Whether or not it ‘harms’ representation is irrelevant – it is still representing them. How the senate gets its power is a completely separate issue from what the government is supposed to be.

the point refuted the silly claim that the government is some sort of arbiter between the people and the resources – a concept that you have based this ‘idea’ of yours on. That premise is utterly false. The government does not exist to be an arbiter of resources – it exists to protect peoples freedom and rights. Your ‘rational’ senate is anything but.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Only because you fail to understand that the US is a nation made of 50 sovereign states, all equal to one another.
As they are equal to one another, equal representation is necessary.

 

[dcraelin]

"government exists for the people"....

And?

That does not preclude a senate from existing one bit.
Reading comprehension.

The Senate gives unequal "representation", because the population of the states differs.

You are still floundering. That does not mean that the government does not represent the people.
Do you understand what the term ‘represent’ means?

yes yes, ..most people would say it does harm "representation"

No, actually most would not but that has nothing to do with the statement that the government represents the people.
Whether or not it ‘harms’ representation is irrelevant – it is still representing them. How the senate gets its power is a completely separate issue from what the government is supposed to be.

the point refuted the silly claim that the government is some sort of arbiter between the people and the resources – a concept that you have based this ‘idea’ of yours on. That premise is utterly false. The government does not exist to be an arbiter of resources – it exists to protect peoples freedom and rights. Your ‘rational’ senate is anything but.

Sigh, part of the job of government is dealing with peoples use of natural resources, ...part.

My proposal is far more Rational than the existing structure of the Senate

 

[dcraelin]

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.

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

Only because you fail to understand that the US is a nation made of 50 sovereign states, all equal to one another.
As they are equal to one another, equal representation is necessary.

Why are they equal? ...because a king said so?....or was he just handing out favors to suck-ups.

How do you think the borders on the western states were determined?....I bet it was at least partially on a guess as to their future economic production.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Spare me the lecture.

... 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

Only because you fail to understand that the US is a nation made of 50 sovereign states, all equal to one another.
As they are equal to one another, equal representation is necessary.

Why are they equal? ...because a king said so?....or was he just handing out favors to suck-ups.

Your ignorance is showing.
If you have't done so already, take a comprehensive American History class; if you have taken one, re-take it and pay attention.

 

[dcraelin]

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

Only because you fail to understand that the US is a nation made of 50 sovereign states, all equal to one another.
As they are equal to one another, equal representation is necessary.

Why are they equal? ...because a king said so?....or was he just handing out favors to suck-ups.

Your ignorance is showing.
If you have't done so already, take a comprehensive American History class; if you have taken one, re-take it and pay attention.

I dare say I know more about the history than you do ......again if your going to quote me..quote the whole post....its easy

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Only because you fail to understand that the US is a nation made of 50 sovereign states, all equal to one another.
As they are equal to one another, equal representation is necessary.

Why are they equal? ...because a king said so?....or was he just handing out favors to suck-ups.

Your ignorance is showing.
If you have't done so already, take a comprehensive American History class; if you have taken one, re-take it and pay attention.

I dare say I know more about the history than you do

If were the case, you would not have to ask "Why are they equal? ...because a king said so?....or was he just handing out favors to suck-ups? How do you think the borders on the western states were determined?"

 

[dcraelin]

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

Only because you fail to understand that the US is a nation made of 50 sovereign states, all equal to one another.
As they are equal to one another, equal representation is necessary.

Why are they equal? ...because a king said so?....or was he just handing out favors to suck-ups.

Your ignorance is showing.
If you have't done so already, take a comprehensive American History class; if you have taken one, re-take it and pay attention.

I dare say I know more about the history than you do

If were the case, you would not have to ask "Why are they equal? ...because a king said so?....or was he just handing out favors to suck-ups? How do you think the borders on the western states were determined?"

Well part of that was rhetorical.

But, it was a mixture of these reasons...plus political considerations.....which is why I propose a more rational solution....which you have yet to refute in any real way.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Only because you fail to understand that the US is a nation made of 50 sovereign states, all equal to one another.
As they are equal to one another, equal representation is necessary.

Why are they equal? ...because a king said so?....or was he just handing out favors to suck-ups.

Your ignorance is showing.
If you have't done so already, take a comprehensive American History class; if you have taken one, re-take it and pay attention.

I dare say I know more about the history than you do

If were the case, you would not have to ask "Why are they equal? ...because a king said so?....or was he just handing out favors to suck-ups? How do you think the borders on the western states were determined?"

It was a mixture of these reasons...plus political considerations...

As I said,,. your ignorance showing.

 

[dcraelin]

Why are they equal? ...because a king said so?....or was he just handing out favors to suck-ups.

Your ignorance is showing.
If you have't done so already, take a comprehensive American History class; if you have taken one, re-take it and pay attention.

I dare say I know more about the history than you do

If were the case, you would not have to ask "Why are they equal? ...because a king said so?....or was he just handing out favors to suck-ups? How do you think the borders on the western states were determined?"

It was a mixture of these reasons...plus political considerations...

As I said,,. your ignorance showing.

sigh....yeah thats a cute reply...youve said it before....point noted ....now leave and make room for people willing to engage in real debate.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your ignorance is showing.
If you have't done so already, take a comprehensive American History class; if you have taken one, re-take it and pay attention.

I dare say I know more about the history than you do

If were the case, you would not have to ask "Why are they equal? ...because a king said so?....or was he just handing out favors to suck-ups? How do you think the borders on the western states were determined?"

It was a mixture of these reasons...plus political considerations...

As I said,,. your ignorance showing.

sigh....yeah thats a cute reply...youve said it before

It was true then, it is true now.
Anyone who argues as you do does not possess sufficient knowledge of the creation of the US in general, and the creation of the constitution in specific, to have an intelligent conversation om the subject.
"because a king said so".

now leave and make room for people willing to engage in real debate.

There's nothing in your proposal worth debating as you stand your argument on a baseless complaint.

 

[JakeStarkey]

because simpletons are easily entertained ..

Are dimocraps getting dumber?

I mean, how stupid are you?

Edge is the simpleton.