Should We Get Rid of the Senate ?
Options
DarcSkies777
Members Posts: 5,600 ✭✭✭
...and just pass Bills through the House of Reps?
I know why we have a Senate to make all states equal and it may be unrealistic to go against the Constitution and strike that part out. But for the sake of argument do you think ridding ourselves of the Senate would be a good idea?
I know why we have a Senate to make all states equal and it may be unrealistic to go against the Constitution and strike that part out. But for the sake of argument do you think ridding ourselves of the Senate would be a good idea?
Comments
-
I like the idea of a senate. The problem for me is all the parliamentary rules that make the senate uber obstructive. The idea that one senator can block unemployment benefits, including cobra, or that one senator can hold up presidential nominees, to me is absurd. There isn't anything in the Constitution that lets them do that or anything any laws the lets it happen. Its all in the 'Senate rules' and that's stuff that the Senate made up. We need to get rid of all that ? because it thwarts the purpose of the Senate. There is no law saying you need 60 votes to pass anything, that's just another senate rule..and it isn't even that old.
-
I like the idea of a senate. The problem for me is all the parliamentary rules that make the senate uber obstructive. The idea that one senator can block unemployment benefits, including cobra, or that one senator can hold up presidential nominees, to me is absurd. There isn't anything in the Constitution that lets them do that or anything any laws the lets it happen. Its all in the 'Senate rules' and that's stuff that the Senate made up. We need to get rid of all that ? because it thwarts the purpose of the Senate. There is no law saying you need 60 votes to pass anything, that's just another senate rule..and it isn't even that old.
See what happens when you let the government govern themselves? -
honestly, i don't see how this will solve any of our problemsDarcSkies777 wrote: »But for the sake of argument do you think ridding ourselves of the Senate would be a good idea? -
honestly, i don't see how this will solve any of our problems
But wouldn't it be nice, if at least in theory, on paper, our legislative branch was intended to be made up of elected officials that represent the people? -
and how would making the House the only legislative body accomplish that?shootemwon wrote: »But wouldn't it be nice, if at least in theory, on paper, our legislative branch was intended to be made up of elected officials that represent the people? -
and how would making the House the only legislative body accomplish that?
Because the house, in theory, on paper, is a legislative body that is intended to be made up of elected officials that represent the people. You're not too smart, are you? -
honestly, i don't see how this will solve any of our problems
Much of the problems facing the government is the lack of movement on issues found to be divisive between the parties. Eliminating the senate would allowing the majority party to push forward agendas without obstruction from the minority party. While some might view this as bad given the slow death we seem to be experiencing I would action over inaction even if my party is not in the majority. -
shootemwon wrote: »But wouldn't it be nice, if at least in theory, on paper, our legislative branch was intended to be made up of elected officials that represent the people?
The House has a set number of people per representative, or fairly close. Where a California or New York rep might have a distrinct of 400,000 the Wyoming rep has maybe 300,000. However the Wyoming Senator represents 150,000 people while the California Senator represents 20,000,000 people. Allowing each to have an equal vote seems undemocratic.
I quoted the wrong post. I meant tyhis to be in reply to Janklow's "and how would making the House the only legislative body accomplish that? " comment. -
The House has a set number of people per representative, or fairly close. Where a California or New York rep might have a distrinct of 400,000 the Wyoming rep has maybe 300,000. However the Wyoming Senator represents 150,000 people while the California Senator represents 20,000,000 people. Allowing each to have an equal vote seems undemocratic.
I quoted the wrong post. I meant tyhis to be in reply to Janklow's "and how would making the House the only legislative body accomplish that? " comment.
Janklow is an idiot, I understand why you didn't wanna bring shame to your own post by quoting him. -
The House has a set number of people per representative, or fairly close. Where a California or New York rep might have a distrinct of 400,000 the Wyoming rep has maybe 300,000. However the Wyoming Senator represents 150,000 people while the California Senator represents 20,000,000 people. Allowing each to have an equal vote seems undemocratic.
I quoted the wrong post. I meant tyhis to be in reply to Janklow's "and how would making the House the only legislative body accomplish that? " comment.
Well I know why we have a Senate but how are equal votes by population not democratic?
Also, I get why each state should have an equal vote but why should a couple states with 50,000 people get to block legislation that 2 or 3 million people desperately want or need?
So its kind of a pick your poison type thing. We can hope that the majority always make decisions that benefit the country at large sticking with the lower chamber. Or we can hope that a couple small states with ? senators dont block legislation the majority of Americans want. -
so is the Senate. start explaining to me why the average Representative actually gives a ? about his constituents more than the average Senator does.shootemwon wrote: »Because the house, in theory, on paper, is a legislative body that is intended to be made up of elected officials that represent the people.
awww, it's cute the way you've gone right to talking ? because we don't agree. disagreement is so rare on the internet!shootemwon wrote: »You're not too smart, are you?
honestly, i don't know that you really mean this. it's commonly said when one's party is the majority (and not just in your case; i know plenty of Republicans that would have said this circa 2000-2006 who would find it an OUTRAGEOUS notion now), but people start thinking otherwise when they're staring down an agenda they don't want.While some might view this as bad given the slow death we seem to be experiencing I would action over inaction even if my party is not in the majority.
i mean, you might mean this sincerely, it's just hard for me to accept.
it's for the sake of the states, not the sake of the individuals. frankly, i don't want very populated states who have proven they CANNOT act responsibly (i'm looking at you, California) exerting too much control over states around them.Allowing each to have an equal vote seems undemocratic.
i am sorry you have such hurt feelings over the internetshootemwon wrote: »Janklow is an idiot, I understand why you didn't wanna bring shame to your own post by quoting him. -
America's system of governance is too inefficient. Replace the 2 Party System with a One Party System. Then, strip the legislative branch of its power to make the budget. Dead the 22nd Amendment to wrap things up.
Do that, and things will get done. -
so is the Senate. start explaining to me why the average Representative actually gives a ? about his constituents more than the average Senator does.
Actually, no the senate isn't. As you would have learned had you made it as far as 5th grade, the House is intended to represent the people and the Senate exists to represent the states. You're not too smart, are you? -
Some 2,000 construction workers building road projects across the US have been sent home after a senator blocked a bill to extend payments.
Republican Jim Bunning single-handedly blocked the legislation, saying it would add to the deficit.
He used procedural tactics to delay the bill and a new vote will now have to be taken, possibly next week.
Doctors and the unemployed may also be affected by failure of a bill to extend payments for government projects.
senate lost -
because the Senators certainly aren't currently elected by voters from their state, right? and the representation of a state has NOTHING to do with representing the people that reside within it, right? also:shootemwon wrote: »Actually, no the senate isn't. As you would have learned had you made it as far as 5th grade, the House is intended to represent the people and the Senate exists to represent the states. You're not too smart, are you?
"start explaining to me why the average Representative actually gives a ? about his constituents more than the average Senator does"
"start explaining to me why the average Representative actually gives a ? about his constituents more than the average Senator does"
"start explaining to me why the average Representative actually gives a ? about his constituents more than the average Senator does"
ps. i would continue to apologize for putting sand in your ? by not agreeing with your stunning intellect but i don't think you will accept my apology -
we should outsource the senate to india
"Hello, this is your senator Punjabi Ali Khan, this call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes, how may I represent you today?" -
BOSS KTULU wrote: »we should outsource the senate to india
"Hello, this is your senator Punjabi Ali Khan, this call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes, how may I represent you today?"
? would be entertaining atleast. I saw a video where the Indian Parliament (or whatever) were beating each other with sticks. I asked my Indian friend about it and he said they how the figure out who will be the party with majority leadership. Now that's democracy :tu -
because the Senators certainly aren't currently elected by voters from their state, right? and the representation of a state has NOTHING to do with representing the people that reside within it, right? also:
"start explaining to me why the average Representative actually gives a ? about his constituents more than the average Senator does"
"start explaining to me why the average Representative actually gives a ? about his constituents more than the average Senator does"
"start explaining to me why the average Representative actually gives a ? about his constituents more than the average Senator does"
ps. i would continue to apologize for putting sand in your ? by not agreeing with your stunning intellect but i don't think you will accept my apology
As for your first question, are you just intentionally ignoring the point or do you really not see why every state getting 2 votes in the Senate is not representative of the people?
As for your other inquiry, house members represent (for the most part) represent a small and typically more localized group of constituents. For example, in my home state of Pennsylvania, Senators have to deal with the issues of a major east coast city like Philly, an outdated midwestish city like Pittsburgh, the suburban rich yuppies of the southeast bedroom counties, scranton and all them ? from the northeast, and then the psychotic redneck ? in the midstate. That's a hell of a lot of different regions all with different concerns and priorities for one Senator to balance, and you're typically going against the will and/or interest of many if not most of your state with plenty of votes, no matter what you do. On the other hand, a Representative from Philly can be a lot more focused on the needs of people in Philadelphia, in fact, on the needs of the people in a certain section of Philadelphia. Oh, and also, they gotta get re-elected every 2 years but I don't really think that's a good thing.
I'm not saying the House is wonderful or anything. We should have way more Representatives as the population keeps growing, rather than keep carving up the existing districts to create desirable demographics for various groups, but hey, it's still better than 2 votes per state regardless of how many people that 2 votes represents. -
frankly, it might be you missing my point. "the people" is not simply a concept meant to reflect the popular vote across the nation; it also refers to the population of the states. senators are (in theory) representing "the people" by representing the state. since you talk about Pennsylvania, take your recently deceased friend Murtha: did the fact that he was a senator and not a representative stop him from claiming to represent the people of his state? that said:shootemwon wrote: »As for your first question, are you just intentionally ignoring the point or do you really not see why every state getting 2 votes in the Senate is not representative of the people?
you may have missed where i was going with this all along. i am not talking about the number of people representatives represent; i am calling the concept that representatives actually give a ? about the people laughable. the fact that a representative has a more specific constituency doesn't tell me that he cares about them.shootemwon wrote: »As for your other inquiry, house members represent (for the most part) represent a small and typically more localized group of constituents. -
frankly, it might be you missing my point. "the people" is not simply a concept meant to reflect the popular vote across the nation; it also refers to the population of the states. senators are (in theory) representing "the people" by representing the state. since you talk about Pennsylvania, take your recently deceased friend Murtha: did the fact that he was a senator and not a representative stop him from claiming to represent the people of his state? that said:
you may have missed where i was going with this all along. i am not talking about the number of people representatives represent; i am calling the concept that representatives actually give a ? about the people laughable. the fact that a representative has a more specific constituency doesn't tell me that he cares about them.
Sorry, my bad. I wasn't aware you wanted to know how Representatives actually care about their constituents more than Senators. They don't, but that wasn't my point. My point is that they are better suited to represent the interests of their constituents than Senators are.
And Murtha wasn't a Senator, he was a Representative. -
Push for removal of Congressional Pension Plan and their Healthcare benefits. Also remove their power to vote their own pay raise.
-
i am not going to dispute the difference in the nature of their particular constituencies. but it seems like people's biggest complaints are that Senators don't represent the American people as a whole (which Representatives don't do either) or that they're under the command of their financial backers, not the voters (which also applies to Representatives).shootemwon wrote: »Sorry, my bad. I wasn't aware you wanted to know how Representatives actually care about their constituents more than Senators. They don't, but that wasn't my point. My point is that they are better suited to represent the interests of their constituents than Senators are.
yeah, you're absolutely right, my fault. i don't know where i was going with that ... well, i do, but he's not an accurate example. next time i will pick on Maryland's senators.shootemwon wrote: »And Murtha wasn't a Senator, he was a Representative. -
i am not going to dispute the difference in the nature of their particular constituencies. but it seems like people's biggest complaints are that Senators don't represent the American people as a whole (which Representatives don't do either) or that they're under the command of their financial backers, not the voters (which also applies to Representatives).
No, my biggest concern is actually that giving each state, regardless of population, the same 2 votes in the Senate means that a few hundred thousand yokels in Montana get the same representation as a tens of millions of Californians, and just because you may not think highly of california voters does not mean they don't deserve fair representation -
but they don't. they only get the same representation in the Senate. and it's not about "thinking poorly" of Californians, it's about allowing them to dictate policy to other states.shootemwon wrote: »No, my biggest concern is actually that giving each state, regardless of population, the same 2 votes in the Senate means that a few hundred thousand yokels in Montana get the same representation as a tens of millions of Californians-
