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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Its amazing how people just reflexively reject any change.

No... just inane changes that have no rational basis, such as those you suggest.
There's nothing in your proposal worth debating as you stand your argument on a baseless complaint.

What is the rational behind the Senate?

To represent the several states, the sovereign entities that make up the republic, in the federal legislature.

Why should RI have the same power in the Senate as California?

In our republic, each state is equal, just as each person is equal.

 

[BlindBoo]

Random lines?

Watch How The States Got Their Shapes Full Episodes Videos Online - HISTORY.com

 

[Siete]

too early for polls ... anyway, from April 7

Clinton is still clearly a stronger candidate than anyone else the Democrats might put forward at this point. Clinton leads Scott Walker, who currently leads in our national GOP polling, 46/42. By comparison Joe Biden (46/40) and Elizabeth Warren (43/39) would both trail Walker in hypothetical match ups.

In addition to Walker, 2 other GOP hopefuls come within 4 points of Clinton. Marco Rubio trails her just 46/43, and Rand Paul's deficit is 46/42. Paul's numbers are interesting. He actually does better than anyone else on his side with independents, leading Clinton by 14 points at 47/33. But the 77% of the Republican vote he gets against Clinton is the lowest of any candidate other than Chris Christie, suggesting that some GOP voters have so much concern about him that they might not even vote for him in a general election. Overall 30% of voters see Paul favorably to 47% who have a negative opinion.

Clinton leads Ben Carson 47/42. Ted Cruz caught fire with conservatives in his party after his candidacy announcement two weeks ago and moved into the upper echelon of Republican candidates within the primary electorate, but there are still a lot of more moderate voters in his party who have deep concerns about him. The 15% of Republicans he loses to Clinton is the most of any of the party's contenders, and it puts him down 49/43. Also down by 6 points is Jeb Bush at 46/40.
The Republicans faring the worst are Mike Huckabee who trails Clinton by 7 at 48/41, Rick Perry who trails Clinton by 9 at 48/39, and Chris Christie who trails Clinton by 9 at 46/37. Only 69% of Republicans even say they would vote for Christie in the general, by far the lowest of any of the party's possible candidates.

When it comes to the Democratic primary, Clinton's position is unchanged from February- she was at 54% then and she's at 54% now. Elizabeth Warren at 14%, Joe Biden at 7%, Bernie Sanders at 6%, Martin O'Malley at 3%, and Jim Webb at 2% round out the field.


wrong thread

 

[M14 Shooter]

Random lines?
Watch How The States Got Their Shapes Full Episodes Videos Online - HISTORY.com

Good show -- wish I had been able to watch more of it.

 

[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,

 

[dcraelin]

Its amazing how people just reflexively reject any change.

No... just inane changes that have no rational basis, such as those you suggest.
There's nothing in your proposal worth debating as you stand your argument on a baseless complaint.

What is the rational behind the Senate?

To represent the several states, the sovereign entities that make up the republic, in the federal legislature.

Why should RI have the same power in the Senate as California?

In our republic, each state is equal, just as each person is equal.

get the hell off the thread...youre just regurgitating sophisms about the current state of events....not justifying your mindless support of the idiocies of the past......just saw today how Madison and Wilson both opposed the make-up of the Senate so Im in good company with them.

 

[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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Its amazing how people just reflexively reject any change.

No... just inane changes that have no rational basis, such as those you suggest.
There's nothing in your proposal worth debating as you stand your argument on a baseless complaint.

What is the rational behind the Senate?

To represent the several states, the sovereign entities that make up the republic, in the federal legislature.

Why should RI have the same power in the Senate as California?

In our republic, each state is equal, just as each person is equal.

get the hell off the thread...youre just regurgitating sophisms about the current state of events....not justifying your mindless support of the idiocies of the past

You're just upset that all of the reasons for the senate representing each state equally are as valid now as they were in 1789 and that you have yet to raise a compelling argument to the contrary.
Your problem, not mine

 

[dcraelin]

Random lines?

Watch How The States Got Their Shapes Full Episodes Videos Online - HISTORY.com

yes, I realize they arent exactly random lines.....a little bit of hyperbole....they aren't exactly based on a fair rational either.
political machinations explain alot of it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Fortunately that's not the case here.
Each state in the United States is just that -- a state, a small country unto itself.
that being the case, by their very nature they are sovereign, just like every other state.
Had you passed US History 075, you;d understand that.

 

[dcraelin]

Its amazing how people just reflexively reject any change.

No... just inane changes that have no rational basis, such as those you suggest.
There's nothing in your proposal worth debating as you stand your argument on a baseless complaint.

What is the rational behind the Senate?

To represent the several states, the sovereign entities that make up the republic, in the federal legislature.

Why should RI have the same power in the Senate as California?

In our republic, each state is equal, just as each person is equal.

get the hell off the thread...youre just regurgitating sophisms about the current state of events....not justifying your mindless support of the idiocies of the past

You're just upset that all of the reasons for the senate representing each state equally are as valid now as they were in 1789 and that you have yet to raise a compelling argument to the contrary.
Your problem, not mine

they are as invalid now as they were then...and you havent justified them at all

now dont bother "replying" either....your replies are a waste of space

 

[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.

Fortunately that's not the case here.
Each state in the United States is just that -- a state, a small country unto itself.
that being the case, by their very nature they are sovereign, just like every other state.
Had you passed US History 075, you;d understand that.

you ass, I do understand that....nothing in my proposal makes them less sovereign.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Its amazing how people just reflexively reject any change.

No... just inane changes that have no rational basis, such as those you suggest.
There's nothing in your proposal worth debating as you stand your argument on a baseless complaint.

What is the rational behind the Senate?

To represent the several states, the sovereign entities that make up the republic, in the federal legislature.

Why should RI have the same power in the Senate as California?

In our republic, each state is equal, just as each person is equal.

get the hell off the thread...youre just regurgitating sophisms about the current state of events....not justifying your mindless support of the idiocies of the past

You're just upset that all of the reasons for the senate representing each state equally are as valid now as they were in 1789 and that you have yet to raise a compelling argument to the contrary.
Your problem, not mine

they are as invalid now as they were then...

You know you cannot show this to be true.
Personally, I blame your abject ignorance.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Fortunately that's not the case here.
Each state in the United States is just that -- a state, a small country unto itself.
that being the case, by their very nature they are sovereign, just like every other state.
Had you passed US History 075, you;d understand that.

you ass, I do understand that

If that were true, you would not have said that "sovereignty is an empty concept if it isn't based on some sort of logical rational".
Since you understand why the states are sovereign and thus equal to one another , why do you fail to understand the legitimacy each state having equal representation in the senate?

 

[dcraelin]

But perhaps these states should be combined as they once were under the crown

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]

 

[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.

Fortunately that's not the case here.
Each state in the United States is just that -- a state, a small country unto itself.
that being the case, by their very nature they are sovereign, just like every other state.
Had you passed US History 075, you;d understand that.

you ass, I do understand that

If that were true, you would not have said that "sovereignty is an empty concept if it isn't based on some sort of logical rational".
Since you understand why the states are sovereign and thus equal to one another , why do you fail to understand the legitimacy each state having equal representation in the senate?

being soverign does not mean they are equal to each other. THey are sovereign within their own territory....
now, you are on ignore so will be the last "reply" I will have to endure from you.

 

[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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

...
now, you are on ignore so will be the last "reply" I will have to endure from you...

...the coward says as runs away from from an argument he knows he cannot win, wiping tears from his eyes and snot from his nose.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Never mind the fact that the US is a federal union of 50 states; as such, the states themselves MUST have representation in that union.
Thus, the senate.