- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
What is your argument for two senators per state in modern times?
Posted on 7/6/22 at 5:44 am
Posted on 7/6/22 at 5:44 am
My understanding is that it was a compromise to get smaller states, believing they were sovereign, to join the union.
How about now? Does the undemocratic nature of the two senators serve a greater purpose in this day and age?
Before you downvote the frick out of me, I like things the way they are.
Somebody argued against two senators to me yesterday, and I’m wondering what y’all think.
How about now? Does the undemocratic nature of the two senators serve a greater purpose in this day and age?
Before you downvote the frick out of me, I like things the way they are.
Somebody argued against two senators to me yesterday, and I’m wondering what y’all think.
57
Posted on 7/6/22 at 5:46 am to baybeefeetz
James Madison. Minority rights. Republicanism. Democracy is tyranny of the majority.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 5:55 am to baybeefeetz
States only were willing to give authority to the Federal Government when things like two senators per State and the electoral college were put in place to ensure small States kept a voice.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 5:57 am to baybeefeetz
What Timo said.
And of course it is undemocratic, we are not a democratic form of government. This is a representative republic.
Problem with senators is they are no longer representing the states. Therein lies the true issue.
And of course it is undemocratic, we are not a democratic form of government. This is a representative republic.
Problem with senators is they are no longer representing the states. Therein lies the true issue.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 5:57 am to baybeefeetz
It's been ruined by the 17th amendment.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 5:58 am to baybeefeetz
More than half the states in the country would secede if they were forced to live under the deranged and demented morality of California and New York.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 6:00 am to baybeefeetz
It's in the fricking Constitution. It DOES keep small states from being railroaded by big states.
"Somebody" is a fricking idiot.
quote:
Somebody argued against two senators to me yesterday, and I’m wondering what y’all think.
"Somebody" is a fricking idiot.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 6:01 am to baybeefeetz
Two Senators ensures that States with lesser populations do not get silenced by States with larger populations. Without the Senate CA, TX, FL, and NY would have the most amount of Congressional Representatives a little over 1/3 for just 4 States. The Senate forces compromise and keeps the power of larger States in check.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 6:06 am to baybeefeetz
I would like it to go back to the old model pre-17th ammendment. Less democracy and more representation.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 6:14 am to baybeefeetz
Why not one senator per state?
Posted on 7/6/22 at 6:15 am to baybeefeetz
You tell me why we have two houses of Congress voted on by the same people.
Originally it was so that state interests would have representation alongside the people. Now the same people that vote in the house also vote in the Senate. And because of that the interests are the same. The only difference now is the Senate requires a larger majority to do what the house does with a simple majority.
The filibuster is there because otherwise the Senate has zero reason to exist. With the filibuster, there is zero reason for the house.
Originally it was so that state interests would have representation alongside the people. Now the same people that vote in the house also vote in the Senate. And because of that the interests are the same. The only difference now is the Senate requires a larger majority to do what the house does with a simple majority.
The filibuster is there because otherwise the Senate has zero reason to exist. With the filibuster, there is zero reason for the house.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 6:19 am to Herooftheday
quote:
Originally it was so that state interests would have representation alongside the people. Now the same people that vote in the house also vote in the Senate.
Agreed. If you go back and read the arguments from the Federalist Papers on the purpose of the two branches of Congress, you would see the stupidity of the 17th ammendment. The states no longer have any representation, and we don't have direct control over our Senators. States should be able to recall bad Senators not serving their interests.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 6:25 am to baybeefeetz
quote:
Does the undemocratic nature of the two senators serve a greater purpose in this day and age?
In a constitutional republic?
Posted on 7/6/22 at 6:27 am to Herooftheday
Part of me thinks that repealing the 17th could solve a lot of our problems.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 6:27 am to Tmo Sabe
quote:
James Madison. Minority rights. Republicanism. Democracy is tyranny of the majority.
It is a balance of power between the large population states and small population states.
It is the same reason for the Electoral College.
Hopefully, Senate elections stay whole state elections. Could you imagine the NAACP advocating splitting a state in two just to ensure one black Senator is elected.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 6:33 am to baybeefeetz
quote:
Does the undemocratic nature of the two senators
That's because we are a republic and because the Senate was never meant to be a direct representative of the People, but a direct representative of the States (through their legislatures).
The reason the 17th Amendment came about was because States were slacking in filling Senate seats. Instead of making the Senate directly elected by the People, they should have set a time limit on filling a seat and if that limit was broken then the authority to appoint would fall to that State's governor.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 6:34 am to baybeefeetz
The entire point of our governmental setup is to protect the minority from the majority. Naturally the temporary majority is always whining and bitching about how we need fundamental changes until the next big event happens and they decide they want fundamental changes the other way.
People are dumb and irrational at times. We need slow deliberative process to make nonemotional decisions and we absolutely do not need a system where the majority of the day can just push through whatever they are feeling that day.
People are dumb and irrational at times. We need slow deliberative process to make nonemotional decisions and we absolutely do not need a system where the majority of the day can just push through whatever they are feeling that day.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 6:36 am to baybeefeetz
Because if you gave the states senators bases on population, California would have more senators than the bottom 22 or 23 states combined. And while that disparity in the House is mitigated by districts (California has 11 Republican Representatives), state-wide elections for senators would give California 53 Democratic Senators who ignore their conservative constituents.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 6:46 am to baybeefeetz
It seems that in most states you have two senators and one of them acts as an ideologic counterweight to the extremism of the other.
Ex's: Roy Blunt in Missouri tempering the radical Josh Hawley; in Louisiana it's Cassidy and Kennedy; Cornyn and Cruz in Texas and so forth.
Ex's: Roy Blunt in Missouri tempering the radical Josh Hawley; in Louisiana it's Cassidy and Kennedy; Cornyn and Cruz in Texas and so forth.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 6:54 am to baybeefeetz
"Modern times" is a reason that leftist use to trash the constitution. The leftist claim it is a "living breathing document"......No it is not. Text on pages don't just change. If the constitution doesn't spell it out it is then the states that can enact law in the area of interest that isn't covered in the constitution.
The leftist use all sorts of excuses to get rid of the electoral college. When they start using terms like it is racist or a relic then you know you better look hard at what they are saying. They are so desperate to get rid of it because they know the CA, NY, MI, OH, MN, NJ, MA, PA will have presidency and executive branch forever.
The electoral college is the same idea as each state having 2 senators...to give a voice to states and their interest. Not all states have the same interest, they each have their own set of issues, interest, industry, etc.
The leftist use all sorts of excuses to get rid of the electoral college. When they start using terms like it is racist or a relic then you know you better look hard at what they are saying. They are so desperate to get rid of it because they know the CA, NY, MI, OH, MN, NJ, MA, PA will have presidency and executive branch forever.
The electoral college is the same idea as each state having 2 senators...to give a voice to states and their interest. Not all states have the same interest, they each have their own set of issues, interest, industry, etc.
Page 1 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News