- 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 12:51 pm to baybeefeetz
Posted on 7/7/22 at 12:51 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
How about now? Does the undemocratic nature of the two senators serve a greater purpose in this day and age?
I’m sorry, but the minority needs protection from the majority. The majority can be evil and has been many times in the past. The Nazis were voted into power by the mob. Jim Crow was voted into power to subjugate the minority.
A democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. A constitutional republic is two wolves and a well armed sheep deciding what’s for dinner.
0
Posted on 7/7/22 at 1:02 pm to Topisawtiger
quote:
Problem with senators is they are no longer representing the states
True dat - Senators should be subject to recall at the drop of a hat.
Hav ing one of them sit back fat and happy grifting the system for SIX f'n years is stooppid.
The Senate was supposed to be the backstop to keep any sort of public 'outrage' might generate ill-thought out law.
Now it is just another throw-up from the party machinery - with only half dozen counter examples.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 1:16 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
People talk about intent all the time.
When we know the intent of the founding fathers varies person to person. Jefferson’s intent wasn’t the same as Madison’s.
And we also know this specific issue was a compromise so smaller states wouldn’t walk.
Which means they found the set up agreeable but probably preferred something else.
When we know the intent of the founding fathers varies person to person. Jefferson’s intent wasn’t the same as Madison’s.
And we also know this specific issue was a compromise so smaller states wouldn’t walk.
Which means they found the set up agreeable but probably preferred something else.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 1:21 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
And we also know this specific issue was a compromise so smaller states wouldn’t walk.
Correct. And I don't see why that's any different now. Almost like they knew what they were doing so long ago...
Posted on 7/7/22 at 1:26 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
It’s a lot easier to walk away from a loose confederacy than the US.
See Civil War
Countries that can’t evolve Tom more representative forms of government are prone to revolutions.
Monopoly of the minority isn’t better than monopoly of the majority. Also the intent to marginalize that wasn’t every state getting 2 senators. It was the president having veto powers and the SCOTUS having review of constitutional rights.
It’s not there to prevent popular political movements from being able to govern.
I have also not heard a compelling reason to why I should care more about a states rights than citizens rights.
See Civil War
Countries that can’t evolve Tom more representative forms of government are prone to revolutions.
Monopoly of the minority isn’t better than monopoly of the majority. Also the intent to marginalize that wasn’t every state getting 2 senators. It was the president having veto powers and the SCOTUS having review of constitutional rights.
It’s not there to prevent popular political movements from being able to govern.
I have also not heard a compelling reason to why I should care more about a states rights than citizens rights.
This post was edited on 7/7/22 at 1:30 pm
Posted on 7/7/22 at 1:32 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Countries that can’t evolve Tom more representative forms of government are prone to revolutions.
Being lorded over by a handful of cities/MSAs is a pretty good kick-starter for a revolution.
quote:
Monopoly of the minority isn’t better than monopoly of the majority.
Monopoly of the majority is not better than monopoly of the minority.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 2:01 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Being lorded over by a handful of cities/MSAs is a pretty good kick-starter for a revolution.
Yeah all those empty fields will rise up.
Have people lorded over by cow pastures will spark some unrest.
But practically, you see this in the house. It isn’t Chi/NYC/LA lording over the rest of the country. So why would that happen in the senate?
quote:
Monopoly of the majority is not better than monopoly of the minority.
Which is why you protects the rights of the minority not give them the reigns or disproportionate power.
The thing about representative govenrment is that it needs to represent people.
This post was edited on 7/7/22 at 2:03 pm
Posted on 7/7/22 at 2:13 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Yeah all those empty fields will rise up.
Have people lorded over by cow pastures will spark some unrest.
And this attitude is exactly why you'll never get what you ultimately want, thankfully.
quote:
But practically, you see this in the house. It isn’t Chi/NYC/LA lording over the rest of the country. So why would that happen in the senate?
Following this line of thinking to its conclusion, why have a Senate at all?
quote:
Which is why you protects the rights of the minority not give them the reigns or disproportionate power.
That's idealistic and naïve. What we'd actually see is the imposition of the "correct" rights. Mob rule. We're right because there are more of us.
quote:
The thing about representative govenrment is that it needs to represent people.
It does, and not just the largest faction, if you had your way.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 2:24 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
It does, and not just the largest faction, if you had your way.
How doe senators get elected? Do they not just represent the largest faction of their state?
Wouldn’t it be nice for the millions of republicans in California to have a voice in the senate?
And again, you can’t pretend 2 senators per state is about the people. It’s about the states.
If everyone but 2 guys left Rhodesia Island. They would have the same say as senators as Texas. That’s insane.
This post was edited on 7/7/22 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 7/7/22 at 2:27 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
How doe senators get elected? Do they not just represent the largest faction of their state?
They're elected by the citizens of each state.
quote:
Wouldn’t it be nice for the millions of republicans in California to have a voice in the senate?
They have a voice in Congress.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 2:30 pm to baybeefeetz
The 17th Amendment is well overdue for repeal.
The House is sent to do the business of the people.
The Senate's purpose is to do the business of the states.
They are not the same, nor were they intended to be.
The House is sent to do the business of the people.
The Senate's purpose is to do the business of the states.
They are not the same, nor were they intended to be.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 2:37 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
And again, you can’t pretend 2 senators per state is about the people. It’s about the states.
You keep saying this like it matters. Those states are made up of citizens, as part of the United States.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 2:40 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
You keep saying this like it matters. Those states are made up of citizens, as part of the United States.
Sure but a state with 1.4 million is treated the same as a state with 26.6
Million.
Do those 1.4 deserve to matter more?
And the question is, does what worked as a compromise in 1787 still work today?
We aren’t really a collection of random colonies. The vast majority of states we’re federally owned territories settled by American citizens. People who were citizens of America before they were citizens of Ohio and Louisiana and Wyoming.
This post was edited on 7/7/22 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 7/7/22 at 2:41 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Do those 1.4 deserve to matter more?
Do they deserve to matter less?
Posted on 7/7/22 at 2:47 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Do they deserve to matter less?
Should 1.4 million people matter less than 28.6 million? Yeah. Probably.
Should 1.4 millionCalifornians matter exactly the same as 1.4 million Hawaiian? Yes
Posted on 7/7/22 at 2:48 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Should 1.4 million people matter less than 28.6 million? Yeah. Probably.
And there's your problem. You think the many should rule the few. That's not how it works.
quote:
Should 1.4 millionCalifornians matter exactly the same as 1.4 million Hawaiian? Yes
California has 53 seats in the House. Hawaii has 2.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 2:50 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Should 1.4 million people matter less than 28.6 million? Yeah. Probably. Should 1.4 millionCalifornians matter exactly the same as 1.4 million Hawaiian? Yes
Which do you not understand—bicameral legislatures, federalism, dual sovereignty, or all of the above?
Posted on 7/7/22 at 2:59 pm to Indefatigable
I understand all of it.
You can both understand something and dislike it.
That can’t be a foreign concept to you.
You can both understand something and dislike it.
That can’t be a foreign concept to you.
Posted on 7/7/22 at 3:02 pm to SammyTiger
It isn’t. Those that dislike it generally are completely ignorant of the reasoning behind the concepts, however, and tend to be emotionally driven individuals who think cities with large populations should be able to dictate policy to other jurisdictions despite having no commonality of interest whatsoever. These people tend to ignore that those cities (and states where applicable) could enact the policies they want in their own lands—but of course that isn’t enough. They want to dictate policy everywhere else too.
If you said that the House should be enlarged so that California (and all states) had truly proportional allotments—I would completely agree. Our House is way too small compared to other nations. 750k per district is too many.
If you’re actually a proponent of direct democracy or parliamentary system for this country, or for eliminating the Senate, then you just are not intelligent.
If you said that the House should be enlarged so that California (and all states) had truly proportional allotments—I would completely agree. Our House is way too small compared to other nations. 750k per district is too many.
If you’re actually a proponent of direct democracy or parliamentary system for this country, or for eliminating the Senate, then you just are not intelligent.
This post was edited on 7/7/22 at 3:05 pm
Posted on 7/7/22 at 3:11 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Senate were still appointive
Hank, Senate was. The senate as a body is singular.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News