It's not as though two wyoming senators could prevent wyoming from becoming a trash dump if 98 senators (and presumably the House and President) willed it so.
The union is really too big and varied at this point for stuff to work out that way.
No, but 10 states (Cali, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and North Carolina) could theoretically control every piece of legislation in the United States that required a simple majority.
*cough*
I see separate climate and lifestyle are very important when justifying small states getting senators, and very unimportant when considering threatening big state political coalitions.
New England does very well out of the Senate situation, as New Hampshire does very well out of the primary system. I wouldn't argue that either of those were really fair setups though.
Speaker on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
It's not as though two wyoming senators could prevent wyoming from becoming a trash dump if 98 senators (and presumably the House and President) willed it so.
The union is really too big and varied at this point for stuff to work out that way.
No, but 10 states (Cali, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and North Carolina) could theoretically control every piece of legislation in the United States that required a simple majority.
*cough*
I see separate climate and lifestyle are very important when justifying small states getting senators, and very unimportant when considering threatening big state political coalitions.
New England does very well out of the Senate situation, as New Hampshire does very well out of the primary system. I wouldn't argue that either of those were really fair setups though.
No, they're both factors.
I'm not saying our House/Senate setup is entirely fair and not in need of fixing. What I am saying is abolishing the Senate is not the way to go about it. No, I don't have an alternative solution to it, which is why I haven't brought any forth, but I will say that removing potentially 40 of the states say in most legislative matters is probably not the best course of action.
No, they don't cooperate because there's nothing for them to cooperate on, because they don't fucking agree. Nancy Pelosi and Marcy Kaptur, despite both being Republicans, have different constituencies and different concerns.
No, they don't cooperate because there's nothing for them to cooperate on, because they don't fucking agree. Nancy Pelosi and Marcy Kaptur, despite both being Republicans, have different constituencies and different concerns.
No, they don't cooperate because there's nothing for them to cooperate on, because they don't fucking agree. Nancy Pelosi and Marcy Kaptur, despite both being Republicans, have different constituencies and different concerns.
o.0 What?
Dammit. Originally I picked Buck McKeon and Peter King, but given the lockstep nature of Republicans nowadays, arguing that they'll vote in different ways is a bit of a stretch. I changed that, but forgot to change the party.
You'll notice that those ten states don't cooperate to control the House of Representatives.
I think that puts the empirical wrecking ball through your ten state argument.
They don't because there's no point... because their majority vote would mean shit in the Senate, once the smaller states were able to have their say.
That's... that's the whole fucking point.
So you're telling me that representatives from New York and California would vote in lockstep with representatives from Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina if it weren't for those pesky small states? Despite the fact that their constituencies have completely opposite political leanings?
What really needs to happen if we want to keep our political structure the same while reforming the Senate is to redraw the state boundaries to something that makes sense (split up Cali and Texas, merge some of the Flyover and New England states, etc), but that's not going to happen and is probably a good topic for another thread. :P
a5ehren on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Ok, so we'll get rid of representation for Vermont, South Dakota, Wyoming, North Dakota, and Delaware while we're at it.
"Oh what, you wanted representation? TELL YOUR STATE TO STOP BEING SO BIG, you jackalopes."
Yes, the Senate should be abolished. You disagree?
Yes, I do.
I don't believe the solution to the over-representation presented in the Senate is the under-representation of the House. Especially considering the people who are generally elected as Representatives.
Yes, the Senate can be annoying to the larger states, and is a bit unfair if you consider populace, but the idea of equal representation as an entity (a State, in this case) when joining a union (the USA) seems to be an ideal I can get behind. And a representative of Vermont in the house is worth nothing, while Vermont's voice in the Senate is one of fifty.
With that being said, I'm fully aware of the representative inequality within Congress. What I'm saying is, why should California get the biggest voice in what happens just because of their populace? Look how that train wreck of a state has been run. Do we seriously want their ideals to be the loudest, most powerful voice in our legislature?
The way that you frame this is rather telling. The House isn't under-represented it's composite representation is actually equal; give or take several thousand people. My Congresswoman is there on behalf of ~700k people. So is yours. She doesn't have disproportionate importance in comparison to anybody else because she is an equal member in an equal body. (Well, some extra importance due to seniority and committee structure which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish) I'm fine with this because I believe that my voice should be no louder, nor softer, than anyone else's. One man, one vote. Why do you, on the other hand, believe that you're worth 22 of me?
Why do you believe states who are located in warmer climates get more say?There's more to it than a lot of people make it to be. North Dakota has a different lifestyle than Arizona, due to its climate and environment (Which is also at least partially/mostly responsible for its population density to begin with).
One person, one vote. Your "lifestyle" shouldn't entitle you to extra representation in the federal legislature. I know you're glad that's the way it works and all, but states like yours are the reason the rest of us Outsiders can't have nice things.
There's no state that could be such a large single force for any legislation. Texas and California might be populous as hell, but they're also huge states with a variety of people.
If CA wields a huge amount of power, so what? The congressman from SF will vote entirely differently than the one from bumfuck east CA. Lifestyle breeds unity more so than states, except when it comes to sports teams.
Psycho Internet Hawk on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
One person, one vote. Your "lifestyle" shouldn't entitle you to extra representation in the federal legislature. I know you're glad that's the way it works and all, but states like yours are the reason the rest of us Outsiders can't have nice things.
"States like mine?"
I'm in the military. I don't have a state. If I did pick one, it'd be somewhere in the mid-atlantic. I'm currently located in Oklahoma. Thank you so much for assuming things, and also for lowering me to your level of only advocating a personal view because I have something to gain.
Now that we can get by the general "you" of wanting "extra representation" in the fed, can we have a discussion based somewhere on merits, instead of resorting to ad hominem?
Thanks.
Do any of you honestly think we'd have political parties the way we do now if we had no senatorial legislature? It's a check against any state from becoming too powerful (and its working). Our political parties were formed on the idea of the most common ideals to X and Y, and generated as such. If we no longer have states with a voice (and there are several), they become irrelevant in any sense, and people will find the most effective way to get the shit they want. In the case of no check against populace power in a country with distinct, divided regions means those larger regions will have their fucking say.
Considering most people here are liberals (I'm mostly liberal myself), it's only fitting they see the senate as a blockade to getting all the shit they want.
I'm sorry, but doing away with the senate as a liberal ideal sounds more selfish than anything else. Likewise, wanting to expand the power and scope of the Senate as a republican ideal would be selfish as all hell.
It's not a perfect system, but abolishment of a pretty necessary power check is just plain fucking stupid.
jungleroomx on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
There's no state that could be such a large single force for any legislation. Texas and California might be populous as hell, but they're also huge states with a variety of people.
If CA wields a huge amount of power, so what? The congressman from SF will vote entirely differently than the one from bumfuck east CA. Lifestyle breeds unity more so than states, except when it comes to sports teams.
Except when it comes to legislation that can effect that state.
California has enough power and influence to block the shit. Delaware is fucked.
Except when it comes to legislation that can effect that state.
California has enough power and influence to block the shit. Delaware is fucked.
My point is that when you have a massive number of congressmen, each representing only 700k people, you're going to have a lot less state-by-state douchebaggery. The California congressman isn't going to vote against something good for Delaware just because fuck those Delawareans.
Except when it comes to legislation that can effect that state.
California has enough power and influence to block the shit. Delaware is fucked.
My point is that when you have a massive number of congressmen, each representing only 700k people, you're going to have a lot less state-by-state douchebaggery. The California congressman isn't going to vote against something good for Delaware just because fuck those Delawareans.
Yeah dude, its not like Delaware is New Jersey or something.
Of course, in the scary 10 states control everything scenario, a majority of the population is in charge. With the Senate, 10% of the population has a veto.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Of course, in the scary 10 states control everything scenario, a majority of the population is in charge. With the Senate, 10% of the population has a veto.
Facist!
Burtletoy on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
One person, one vote. Your "lifestyle" shouldn't entitle you to extra representation in the federal legislature. I know you're glad that's the way it works and all, but states like yours are the reason the rest of us Outsiders can't have nice things.
"States like mine?"
I'm in the military. I don't have a state. If I did pick one, it'd be somewhere in the mid-atlantic. I'm currently located in Oklahoma. Thank you so much for assuming things, and also for lowering me to your level of only advocating a personal view because I have something to gain.
Now that we can get by the general "you" of wanting "extra representation" in the fed, can we have a discussion based somewhere on merits, instead of resorting to ad hominem?
It was a pretty reasonable assumption considering your the intensity of your position, but it wasn't an "ad hominen", whereas the red up there.
See it, the red, THAT's an ad hominem.
Deebaser on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
You'll notice that those ten states don't cooperate to control the House of Representatives.
I think that puts the empirical wrecking ball through your ten state argument.
They don't because there's no point... because their majority vote would mean shit in the Senate, once the smaller states were able to have their say.
That's... that's the whole fucking point.
So you're telling me that representatives from New York and California would vote in lockstep with representatives from Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina if it weren't for those pesky small states? Despite the fact that their constituencies have completely opposite political leanings?
What really needs to happen if we want to keep our political structure the same while reforming the Senate is to redraw the state boundaries to something that makes sense (split up Cali and Texas, merge some of the Flyover and New England states, etc), but that's not going to happen and is probably a good topic for another thread. :P
You can't even get Senators in New York and California to vote in lock step with their own delagations. The notion that big states could bully small states is absurd.
Deebaser on
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
That, plus, we're a little scrappy down here!!
Well ok, we were more scrappy before Biden became the Vice President... But still
Scrappy! We'll seriously fight ya.
And possibly also throw some chicken pieces at you....
You can't even get Senators in New York and California to vote in lock step with their own delagations. The notion that big states could bully small states is absurd.
No, it's not.
And you're all looking at the House being run the same way as it's run right now after the Senate is gone.
Without that check from small states, shit will change... drastically, quickly, and it won't be in favor of the less populous areas.
There's no way to actually tell, but if this outcome above by Deebaser ever actually happened if the Senate was dissolved (i.e. party lines still being the only way votes go), I will eat my first beret from basic training.
jungleroomx, you're contending that without the Senate, states would gang up on each other in the House, crossing party lines, based on . . . what, exactly?
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
I understand this.
But I'm still unconvinced that a state power check is a bad thing, and even more unconvinced that once a population-based legislative power ranking has been established that shit isn't going to spiral straight to quid pro quo for the most populous states when it comes to pet projects and funding, as well as throwing the legislative garbage to the apparently useless states quite a few people here hate.
It's not about lockstep on every issue. But I guarantee the smaller states are still going to be eating a giant bag of hot federal dick dipped in ass sauce if their single voice on the national level gets dissolved.
jungleroomx on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
jungleroomx, you're contending that without the Senate, states would gang up on each other in the House, crossing party lines, based on . . . what, exactly?
I dunno, ask the people who made the government why they thought it was necessary.
jungleroomx, you're contending that without the Senate, states would gang up on each other in the House, crossing party lines, based on . . . what, exactly?
I dunno, ask the people who made the government why they thought it was necessary.
For similarly stupid reasons as the one that led to black people being 3/5 of a person.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
jungleroomx, you're contending that without the Senate, states would gang up on each other in the House, crossing party lines, based on . . . what, exactly?
I dunno, ask the people who made the government why they thought it was necessary.
For similarly stupid reasons as the one that led to black people being 3/5 of a person.
Yes, I guess the freedom of speech/press thing was pretty stupid too, eh?
Or are we just being picky/choosy with our responses?
We have a senate because it the beginning of our country states were treated and thought of more as individual nations banding together, not as administrative regions as we think of them today.
Every state got an equal share in the Senate for the same reason every country gets a fair share in the UN general assembly.
That might or might not be a relevant notion in the modern US though.
It had nothing to do with racism or the 3/5ths compromise.
Styrofoam Sammich on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
edited December 2010
This thread seems to have been off-topic for a while now and shows no sign of reorienting. I think it's served its purpose.
Posts
*cough*
I see separate climate and lifestyle are very important when justifying small states getting senators, and very unimportant when considering threatening big state political coalitions.
New England does very well out of the Senate situation, as New Hampshire does very well out of the primary system. I wouldn't argue that either of those were really fair setups though.
No, they're both factors.
I'm not saying our House/Senate setup is entirely fair and not in need of fixing. What I am saying is abolishing the Senate is not the way to go about it. No, I don't have an alternative solution to it, which is why I haven't brought any forth, but I will say that removing potentially 40 of the states say in most legislative matters is probably not the best course of action.
I think that puts the empirical wrecking ball through your ten state argument.
They don't because there's no point... because their majority vote would mean shit in the Senate, once the smaller states were able to have their say.
That's... that's the whole fucking point.
o.0 What?
Dammit. Originally I picked Buck McKeon and Peter King, but given the lockstep nature of Republicans nowadays, arguing that they'll vote in different ways is a bit of a stretch. I changed that, but forgot to change the party.
agnostic? I thought you were a vehement atheist, or is it just organized, Abrahamic religions you hate?
So you're telling me that representatives from New York and California would vote in lockstep with representatives from Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina if it weren't for those pesky small states? Despite the fact that their constituencies have completely opposite political leanings?
What really needs to happen if we want to keep our political structure the same while reforming the Senate is to redraw the state boundaries to something that makes sense (split up Cali and Texas, merge some of the Flyover and New England states, etc), but that's not going to happen and is probably a good topic for another thread. :P
One person, one vote. Your "lifestyle" shouldn't entitle you to extra representation in the federal legislature. I know you're glad that's the way it works and all, but states like yours are the reason the rest of us Outsiders can't have nice things.
If CA wields a huge amount of power, so what? The congressman from SF will vote entirely differently than the one from bumfuck east CA. Lifestyle breeds unity more so than states, except when it comes to sports teams.
"States like mine?"
I'm in the military. I don't have a state. If I did pick one, it'd be somewhere in the mid-atlantic. I'm currently located in Oklahoma. Thank you so much for assuming things, and also for lowering me to your level of only advocating a personal view because I have something to gain.
Now that we can get by the general "you" of wanting "extra representation" in the fed, can we have a discussion based somewhere on merits, instead of resorting to ad hominem?
Thanks.
Do any of you honestly think we'd have political parties the way we do now if we had no senatorial legislature? It's a check against any state from becoming too powerful (and its working). Our political parties were formed on the idea of the most common ideals to X and Y, and generated as such. If we no longer have states with a voice (and there are several), they become irrelevant in any sense, and people will find the most effective way to get the shit they want. In the case of no check against populace power in a country with distinct, divided regions means those larger regions will have their fucking say.
Considering most people here are liberals (I'm mostly liberal myself), it's only fitting they see the senate as a blockade to getting all the shit they want.
I'm sorry, but doing away with the senate as a liberal ideal sounds more selfish than anything else. Likewise, wanting to expand the power and scope of the Senate as a republican ideal would be selfish as all hell.
It's not a perfect system, but abolishment of a pretty necessary power check is just plain fucking stupid.
Except when it comes to legislation that can effect that state.
California has enough power and influence to block the shit. Delaware is fucked.
My point is that when you have a massive number of congressmen, each representing only 700k people, you're going to have a lot less state-by-state douchebaggery. The California congressman isn't going to vote against something good for Delaware just because fuck those Delawareans.
Yeah dude, its not like Delaware is New Jersey or something.
Facist!
It was a pretty reasonable assumption considering your the intensity of your position, but it wasn't an "ad hominen", whereas the red up there.
See it, the red, THAT's an ad hominem.
You can't even get Senators in New York and California to vote in lock step with their own delagations. The notion that big states could bully small states is absurd.
Well ok, we were more scrappy before Biden became the Vice President... But still
Scrappy! We'll seriously fight ya.
And possibly also throw some chicken pieces at you....
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
No, it's not.
And you're all looking at the House being run the same way as it's run right now after the Senate is gone.
Without that check from small states, shit will change... drastically, quickly, and it won't be in favor of the less populous areas.
There's no way to actually tell, but if this outcome above by Deebaser ever actually happened if the Senate was dissolved (i.e. party lines still being the only way votes go), I will eat my first beret from basic training.
Unwashed.
But I'm still unconvinced that a state power check is a bad thing, and even more unconvinced that once a population-based legislative power ranking has been established that shit isn't going to spiral straight to quid pro quo for the most populous states when it comes to pet projects and funding, as well as throwing the legislative garbage to the apparently useless states quite a few people here hate.
It's not about lockstep on every issue. But I guarantee the smaller states are still going to be eating a giant bag of hot federal dick dipped in ass sauce if their single voice on the national level gets dissolved.
I dunno, ask the people who made the government why they thought it was necessary.
For similarly stupid reasons as the one that led to black people being 3/5 of a person.
Yes, I guess the freedom of speech/press thing was pretty stupid too, eh?
Or are we just being picky/choosy with our responses?
Every state got an equal share in the Senate for the same reason every country gets a fair share in the UN general assembly.
That might or might not be a relevant notion in the modern US though.
It had nothing to do with racism or the 3/5ths compromise.