Posted by
Message
baybeefeetz
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2009
30947 posts
 Online 

What is your argument for two senators per state in modern times?

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.


Tmo Sabe
Georgia Fan
GA
Member since Mar 2022
242 posts

James Madison. Minority rights. Republicanism. Democracy is tyranny of the majority.


bird35
Auburn Fan
Georgia
Member since Sep 2012
9918 posts

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.


Topisawtiger
Air Force Fan
Mississippi
Member since Oct 2012
3205 posts

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.


Mo Jeaux
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2008
51297 posts

It's been ruined by the 17th amendment.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
551
MMauler
Member since Jun 2013
18383 posts

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.


Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
85263 posts

It's in the fricking Constitution. It DOES keep small states from being railroaded by big states.

quote:

Somebody argued against two senators to me yesterday, and I’m wondering what y’all think.


"Somebody" is a fricking idiot.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
531
stelly1025
LSU Fan
Lafayette
Member since May 2012
7255 posts

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.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
431
burger bearcat
USA Fan
Member since Oct 2020
6145 posts

I would like it to go back to the old model pre-17th ammendment. Less democracy and more representation.


mauser
LSU Fan
Orange Beach
Member since Nov 2008
13748 posts
 Online 

Why not one senator per state?


Herooftheday
Member since Feb 2021
2342 posts

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.


burger bearcat
USA Fan
Member since Oct 2020
6145 posts

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.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
261
jimmy the leg
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2007
24964 posts
 Online 

quote:

Does the undemocratic nature of the two senators serve a greater purpose in this day and age?


In a constitutional republic?




Replies (0)
Replies (0)
60
baybeefeetz
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2009
30947 posts
 Online 

Part of me thinks that repealing the 17th could solve a lot of our problems.



Tarps99
New Orleans Saints Fan
Lafourche Parish
Member since Apr 2017
4165 posts

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.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
120
Bard
LSU Fan
Poli Board President-Elect
Member since Oct 2008
45301 posts

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.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
170
blowmeauburn
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2006
7390 posts
 Online 

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.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
111
ryanlsu
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2005
1168 posts

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.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
160
tarzana
LSU Fan
TX Hwy 6, 74 miles SE of Kyle Field
Member since Sep 2015
20022 posts

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.


jp4lsu
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2016
2980 posts

"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.


first pageprev pagePage 1 of 8next pagelast page

Back to top

logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram