- 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
re: What is your argument for two senators per state in modern times?
Posted on 7/6/22 at 10:10 am to Darth_Vader
Posted on 7/6/22 at 10:10 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Basically almost every amendment past the 15th have proven to be disasters and should never have been ratified. Really the only one I’d keep is the 22nd.
20th Amendment (change of terms from March 4th to Jan 20th/Jan 3rd), 21st (repeal of Prohibition), and 25th (Presidential succession clarification) work.
0
Posted on 7/6/22 at 10:31 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Now do California
I believe most folks agree Alex Padilla is much more progressive than Dianne Feinstein; the junior senator is a leading Senate proponent of open borders, Medicare-For-All and the Green New Deal.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 10:53 am to baybeefeetz
quote:With the increase in urbanization we've seen over the last 50 years, ABSOLUTELY.
How about now? Does the undemocratic nature of the two senators serve a greater purpose in this day and age?
Posted on 7/6/22 at 11:03 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
One of the biggest problems in this country is the notion that any idiot over the age of 18 can vote. This is insane and has lead to to where we are today. A requirement for voting should be you’ve got some skin in the game.
This x1000
Posted on 7/6/22 at 11:04 am to baybeefeetz
quote:
How about now? Does the undemocratic nature of the two senators serve a greater purpose in this day and age?
We are a republic.
Each state gets equal representation in the senate. It keeps the big population states from dictating to smaller states.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 11:09 am to makersmark1
quote:
Each state gets equal representation in the senate. It keeps the big population states from dictating to smaller states.
Is that necessary though?
Are California and Texas hanging up on Hawaii and Wyoming?
Do Hawaii and Wyoming want the same things?
Posted on 7/6/22 at 11:17 am to Wednesday
quote:
Your idea that senators represent the individual citizens of any state is based on a fallacy and fundamental misunderstanding of how our government was designed to work. Those ppl are in the HR and are a direct reflection of the state’s population.
Not my idea. I think states are sovereign and should not give up any more of that sovereignty than the framers intended. But they clearly have or clearly have lost it.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 3:12 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Is that necessary though?
Yes.
In a Federal Republic individual states are equal in the Senate.
This prevents all of the bad policies of big urban areas from being implemented everywhere.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 3:33 pm to baybeefeetz
The Senate was originally designed to represent the state governments and the House represented the citizens. That system was corrupted when the 17th Amendment was adopted providing for direct election. Supposedly the direct election was to prevent the wealthy from buying Senate seats. If you look at the composition of the Senate, that didn’t happen.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 3:41 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
My understanding is that it was a compromise to get smaller states, believing they were sovereign, to join the union
The House represents states by population. The Senate gives every state equal representation regardless of population...
Posted on 7/6/22 at 3:43 pm to baybeefeetz
Senators shouldn’t be elected by the populace. Need to go back to state legislatures selecting them.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 3:43 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
And people will argue constantly that this would lead to the coast ruling the middle of the country, but we have a red House all the time. It’s not uncommon.
It would. The reason we have a red house all the time is because of congressional districts. It allows a state like New York, which hasn’t elected a republican senator in 30 years, to have 9 republican congressmen. California hasn’t elected a republican senator in over 30 years and they have 11 republican congressmen. If senators were elected based on population, those two states would send 80 democratic (probably progressive) senators to DC. This would be close to 20% of the senators if the senate was based on population. That is before adding senators from other progressive states like Illinois and Massachusetts.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 4:08 pm to baybeefeetz
We are a collection of states comprising a country, not a country comprised of states.
This notion has become lost.
The states sent representatives to form the country, not the other way around.
This notion has become lost.
The states sent representatives to form the country, not the other way around.
This post was edited on 7/6/22 at 4:10 pm
Posted on 7/6/22 at 4:27 pm to braindeadboxer
Why?
Posted on 7/6/22 at 4:36 pm to ryanlsu
quote:
It would. The reason we have a red house all the time is because of congressional districts. It allows a state like New York, which hasn’t elected a republican senator in 30 years, to have 9 republican congressmen. California hasn’t elected a republican senator in over 30 years and they have 11 republican congressmen. If senators were elected based on population, those two states would send 80 democratic (probably progressive) senators to DC. This would be close to 20% of the senators if the senate was based on population. That is before adding senators from other progressive states like Illinois and Massachusetts.
I don’t Think anyone is advocating in statewide elections of representative senators.
Madison wanted the House to select a proportionate Senators from candidates appointed by the state legislatures. Which would have been an interesting process.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 4:46 pm to baybeefeetz
Repeal or re-amend the 17th Amendment. The Senators are supposed to represent the individual states and serve at the pleasure of the state legislatures. Some states would deadlock on appointing their senators so the idiots surrendered state power to the popular vote. They should have only deferred to the popular vote if they were deadlocked.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 6:06 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
Does the undemocratic nature of the two senators serve a greater purpose in this day and age?
That's just stupid.
It literally formed a beautifully nuanced entity that balanced the interests of the people (the House), the states (the Senate) and the Union (the executive branch).
It's an extraordinarily well thought out system. It unfortunately has been distorted in recent decades. A Supreme Court that has, in recent weeks, taken law making power from both itself and the executive branch and returned it to where it belongs, can hopefully unwarp the system.
This post was edited on 7/6/22 at 6:10 pm
Posted on 7/6/22 at 11:13 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Why?
Because that’s the way it was intended and that atheism way it was until 1913. We are supposed to be a part of a Republic with 50 sovereign states. This nation was never to be a Democracy.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 12:01 am to baybeefeetz
Have you spent any time in California or New York lately? If you want these people running the whole country, I've got some ocean front property in Venezuela I'd like to sell you.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 12:12 am to baybeefeetz
The real problem is not the senate, it was capping the house. House members were never suppose to be as powerful as they are now, it was suppose to be a balance of senators chosen by the state and house representatives chosen by the people. We really need WAY more house members so they better reflect the people they represent, the Senate is as it should with two senators representing each state, but they need to go back to being chosen by the state to balance things out.
Page 4 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News