Time to rethink the Senate

[nerfvibrator]

The seven least populated states represent less than six million voters, but get 14 senate votes.
The seven most populated states represent over 150 million voters, but only get 14 senate votes.
The senate's role needs to be reduced, or eliminated. Such disparity is failing now and will only get worse.

 

[Lespayne]

What else should we rethink? Why stop there?

 

[icanhelp1]

The seven least populated states represent less than six million voters, but get 14 senate votes.
The seven most populated states represent over 150 million voters, but only get 14 senate votes.
The senate's role needs to be reduced, or eliminated. Such disparity is failing now and will only get worse.

The house of representatives is the people's house. More communist manifesto bullshit, lets destroy the constitution, why? because? Perhaps you should move to N Korea where you can serve your dear leader!

 

[Dribble]

We can fix this after we split the country up.

 

[icanhelp1]

That expedient was attempted once. The modern problem is that too many people see red state-blue state, but in reality, even the states are red and blue, some of them just have major blue cities that dominate politically their red parts, which constitute the majority of their territory. So there would be great difficulty is splitting the country, especially if the unrest stopped the flow of food to the arrogant residents of "Big Blue" and without the strong strange attractor that is as powerful as the issue of slavery was. The only other possible nexus of conflict would be back to the original taxation without representation, which increasingly seems to be manifesting itself again as the Federal Government finds that no amount of revenue is sufficient for it to buy votes.

Red/blue would also be affected by the elimination of the electoral college for a popular vote. More reds in CA would come out to vote and by eliminating a 55 vote swing would have unintended consequences and would certainly change the landscape.

 

[FescueFan]

Oh look another leftist trying to turn the USA into a unitary state run into communism by simple majority mob rule democracy.

Won't just move to Venezuela....they gotta destroy the USA with "progress", because assholes gotta be assholes.

 

[Ziggins]

As the southwest becomes more arid and sea level rise covers the heavily populated coasts, population shift will force us to rethink our states. Some states may combine to have enough people to pay the expenses of state government or revert to territory status. A metropolis with millions of people is a temporary condition of the industrial age. Passing a constitutional amendment for a temporary condition implies a short lifespan of the nation.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

The seven least populated states represent less than six million voters, but get 14 senate votes.
The seven most populated states represent over 150 million voters, but only get 14 senate votes.
The senate's role needs to be reduced, or eliminated. Such disparity is failing now and will only get worse.

The answer is to have more States in some cases, break California into 3 states for example, and less states in other cases, we only need one Dakota.

 

[jaF0]

The way to rethink it is to change the rules to eliminate obstructionists like Mitch. Mandate when bills can, can't or must be voted on for example so that we don't have hundreds sitting on a desk with no action. Even if we never have term limits for seats, establish rules as to how long one person can be in a leadership role.

Bitch's rule change for confirmation from 60 to 50 (or whatever it was) should have not taken effect until the next term, same as rules for pay increases.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

So you want two, or just one, Houses of Representatives where the majority always rules, that States don't matter, well other than the highly populated ones which could then absolutely dictate to the smaller ones, including wringing taxes out of them that they don't have? Great idea. Have you even read The Federalist Papers in order to get some insight into the nature of body designed to represent the States, the people, of course, being represented by the House, and described by the late Democrat Senator Byrd as the saucer which cools the coffee (a metaphor for the passions of the mob)? To you, are the states no more than counties of the United States with no self-rule, but under the control and direction of the District of Columbia? Do you not see the unintended consequences of your grand idea? Do you prefer the tyranny of the mob over giving the minority some voice and power in the process?

Unfortunately we now have the Tyranny of the Minority. The well intentioned and necessary voice of the minority has been bought by Citizens United and paid for with the Trump Tax plan. The absolute anthesis of what the role of the Senate was intended to be.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

The way to rethink it is to change the rules to eliminate obstructionists like Mitch. Mandate when bills can, can't or must be voted on for example so that we don't have hundreds sitting on a desk with no action. Even if we never have term limits for seats, establish rules as to how long one person can be in a leadership role.

Bitch's rule change for confirmation from 60 to 50 (or whatever it was) should have not taken effect until the next term, same as rules for pay increases.

Who is going to make those rules changes? The Senate, which Mitch leads. Which the Minority controls.

I have never been a fan of Term Limits, but I may be changing my thoughts on this one.

 

[FescueFan]

Who is going to make those rules changes? The Senate, which Mitch leads. Which the Minority controls.

I have never been a fan of Term Limits, but I may be changing my thoughts on this one.

Lefties moving moving away from democracy.....just like always.

 

[JackLuis]

If Blue California stopped exporting food stuffs to Red states, all you fuckers would starve!

 

[Wrong Element]

The Democrats do not control the Senate. The problem for the Democratic Party is that while they have the numbers, they are concentrated in too few areas of the country and cannot, therefore, win a majority of the Congress on any consistent basis because they have to fight it out district by district, state by state and not by one big national vote, where they would prevail and cement in that which the Founders fought to prevent, the tyranny of the majority. There's a reason when you read the great works of political thinking that you do not run across this phrase that you have invented, the tyranny of the minority. Our system was set up to prevent that and to offer the minority some protections.

You have no idea what "tyranny of the majority" means.

 

[FescueFan]

If Blue California stopped exporting food stuffs to Red states, all you fuckers would starve!

Another Californian so high on his own farts he's actually convinced himself into actually believing in his own superiority.

 

[icanhelp1]

You have no idea what "tyranny of the majority" means.

How about impeachment by majority tyranny.

 

[FescueFan]

How about impeachment by majority tyranny.

That wasn't tyranny, just the (D)'s showing their true feelings about democracy.

 

[icanhelp1]

That wasn't tyranny, just the (D)'s showing their true feelings about democracy.

OH! I stand corrected!

 

[nerfvibrator]

The founders never envisioned such a disparity. The Federalist papers were written when the disparity was in the thousands, not millions. Lincoln's Gettysburg words warned us.
"and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth"
You can't have the majority of citizens overruled by such a scant number, and survive.

Time for the senate to go, or for states to consolidate, or divide. Turn every city of a ??? (five million?) or more into it's own state. Get representation to match the population.