- 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 7/7/22 at 5:55 am to baybeefeetz
Posted on 7/7/22 at 5:55 am to baybeefeetz
The senate right now is preventing the Dems from rushing through lots of legislation. So why not.
But as others have said, smaller states have equal voting weight as larger states prevents liberal states like California and New York from determining everything in this country.
We are not a pure democracy, we are a representative republic. The idea that one person should equal one vote only applies to the state level. The system is designed for someone in Wyoming to have more sway than someone in California.
But as others have said, smaller states have equal voting weight as larger states prevents liberal states like California and New York from determining everything in this country.
We are not a pure democracy, we are a representative republic. The idea that one person should equal one vote only applies to the state level. The system is designed for someone in Wyoming to have more sway than someone in California.
This post was edited on 7/7/22 at 5:59 am
0
Posted on 7/7/22 at 10:05 am to braindeadboxer
quote:
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.
But why is that better?
Do you think we’d be as powerful as a nation if we were a loose NATO/EU style grouping of sovereign states?
Posted on 7/7/22 at 10:08 am to baybeefeetz
If you base representation soley in population, like the House, then you get the tyranny of the majority.
LINK
LINK
Posted on 7/7/22 at 10:41 am to SammyTiger
quote:
want state legislatures To pick senators like local politicians aren’t corrupt.
This.
Imagine John Alario picking our Senators
Posted on 7/7/22 at 10:46 am to Marquesa
We would still have executive veto’s and the Supreme Court which were how the founding fathers wanted to balance power between majority and minorities.
The way the senate was set up was never about minority right, but out States Rights. And really just a way to appease smaller states to get them to join.
Most of the major federalist (Madison and Hamilton) felt that small/large population states didn’t matter as not all large states agreed.
The way the senate was set up was never about minority right, but out States Rights. And really just a way to appease smaller states to get them to join.
Most of the major federalist (Madison and Hamilton) felt that small/large population states didn’t matter as not all large states agreed.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 10:52 am to SammyTiger
quote:
Republic means it’s run by elected officials. Popular vote doesn’t make it less of a republic.
It does make it a direct democracy, rather than a representative democracy.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 10:56 am to baybeefeetz
There are 10 metro areas with a cumulative 50% US population. Without the Senate you wouldn’t have a country, just 10 metro areas controlling the US.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 12:15 pm to The Goon
quote:
There are 10 metro areas with a cumulative 50% US population.
1. That’s statistically not true. That would be 10 metro areas with a population of 16,475,000. Only the NY-NJ metro area has over 15.
2. Metro areas aren’t the same as cities. They generally include a ton ofnpeoppe living in the burbs who aren’t lock step democrats. Not to mention the 4th biggest metro area is Dallas Fort Worth which isn’t exactly NYC in its politics.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 12:16 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
It does make it a direct democracy, rather than a representative democracy.
Depends on what you're voting on.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 12:18 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
It does make it a direct democracy, rather than a representative democracy.
No it doesn’t.
They would still be electing representatives.
Which is the difference.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 12:19 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
No it doesn’t.
Yes it does.
Read literally anything James Madison wrote on the topic.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 12:28 pm to squid_hunt
quote:
Depends on what you're voting on.
Well, I suppose you still technically maintain a voting proxy, but for any practical purposes the representative democracy the Founding Fathers implemented is gone.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 12:32 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
These terms have meaning pure democracies don’t have representatives.
James Madison also wrote the Virginia Plan which called for a directly elected House and a Senate made up of people nominated by the state legislatures but approved by the House. He also wanted the senate to be proportionate.
James Madison also wrote the Virginia Plan which called for a directly elected House and a Senate made up of people nominated by the state legislatures but approved by the House. He also wanted the senate to be proportionate.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 12:35 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
but for any practical purposes the representative democracy the Founding Fathers implemented is gone.
The Senate thing was a separation of powers. The states lost their rep. It's still republican because we are electing legislatures to vote on our behalf.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 12:39 pm to baybeefeetz
The USA is a representative republic
The interests and concerns of a giant state like California are not the same as the interests and concerns of a small state like Wyoming.
Allowing each state to have 2 senators helps keep the larger states from screwing over the smaller states.
And after all, we are the United STATES of America
The interests and concerns of a giant state like California are not the same as the interests and concerns of a small state like Wyoming.
Allowing each state to have 2 senators helps keep the larger states from screwing over the smaller states.
And after all, we are the United STATES of America
Posted on 7/7/22 at 12:42 pm to baybeefeetz
That was the deal. If you want to change the deal then we have to reopen the question of membership.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 12:42 pm to SammyTiger
True, but puppet proxies aren't accurate to the intent during the formation of our country. You're speaking of 'representative democracy' in a vacuum, isolated from ideas like Madison's outlined in Federalist 10.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 12:44 pm to squid_hunt
I'm not talking about what we have. I'm talking about what some want.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 12:45 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
How about now? Does the undemocratic nature of the two senators serve a greater purpose in this day and age?
Who gives a shite if it's "undemocratic". We live in a republic.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 12:47 pm to baybeefeetz
City Slickers in New York don’t know the first thing about managing a farm
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News