Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Senate can go at anytime. Why should a handful of sparsely populated states have 10-12 Senators while heavily populated states have only 2. That`s as undemocratic as it gets.
Having said that....
Does it seem like a good idea to you, that the states sucking the most resources while putting the least back in, control the decisionmaking regarding the future of all states?
The solution is to end ALL federal revenue sharing. But the feds would never agree as that would dilute their power to control the states.
As for me, Yes, I support abolishing the U.S. Senate because its principle of two seats for each U.S. state is undemocratic.
I am open to reforming the U.S. Senate to make its seat appropriation for each U.S. state be done in the same method as is currently done for the U.S. House of Representatives. However, I think that abolishing the U.S. Senate would be better than this option, considering that what exactly is the point of wasting taxpayer money on having two versions of the U.S. House of Representatives when we can have only one version (the actual U.S. House of Representatives).
No.
I support amending the Constitution to do away with the 17th amendment.
State Legislatures are made up of even smaller districts than the US representatives are elected from.
These smaller districts are even closer to their people than the gerrymandered US house districts.
State appointed Senators, represent the State, through the states legislative branch.
The 17th amendment has allowed the big money special interest and media, to elect State Senators, that no longer represent the state. They represent fascist corporate special interest and themselves.
The 17th amendment allowed corporate ruled America, to happen.
Perhaps........................ just perhaps........................ you are in the "lunatic fringe" and thus, perceive rational thought as lunacy. Just something to ponder.
Perhaps "abolishing the US senate" sounds rational to you and others on that very fringe.
However, I think that abolishing the U.S. Senate would be better than this option, considering that what exactly is the point of wasting taxpayer money on having two versions of the U.S. House of Representatives when we can have only one version (the actual U.S. House of Representatives).
Wow.
What a complete fail. If you don't understand the purpose of the US Constitution, then just ask....that would be a lot less embarrassing for you.
But thanks for starting this thread just the same, as it proves how badly the Left-Wing has damaged the US education system.
In the mid-1990s you should have advanced from the 4th Level Economy into the 5th Level Economy, which is Research & Development. Right now, about 18%-20% of your GDP should be from R&D. In fact, your 5th Level R&D jobs should have replaced your 2nd Level and 3rd Level Manufacturing jobs on nearly a one-for-one basis, meaning that for every Manufacturing job you lost, you should have gained one R&D job that paid the same wages or higher wages.
But hey....Left-Wing ideology is more important than success and prosperity.
1/3 of all employers say they have no faith in college graduates, that they are totally unprepared and lacking in education.
Another Left-Wing Win for America!
Of course, I knew that 10 years ago. I had to stop in the middle of class and teach college freshman how to write a damn essay. Some of them couldn't even define "essay." It's like why in the hell are you even allowed on this campus? They ought to be retreading tires or picking cucumbers.
Another Left-Wing ideological victory: stupid students.....at tax-payer expense.
Why don't you read Plato's TheRepublic and then you'll have an idea what the Framers of the Constitution were thinking.
I believe each state only gets 2 U S Senators, there are only 100 of them.
I think that he means that, for instance, MT+ID+WY+ND+SD combined have ten U.S. Senators while, say, California has only two U.S. Senators even though it has a larger population than they have combined.
I think we need to get rid of the filibuster. It was fine in the 1990s and 1980s when it was never used but now it just stops anything from being done. We should just have a majority rules senate.
I think we need to get rid of the filibuster. It was fine in the 1990s and 1980s when it was never used but now it just stops anything from being done. We should just have a majority rules senate.
1. Bad idea. Why? Less populace states would have no reason to be a part of the Union any longer.
2. The Founding Fathers established two senators per state and the electoral college to eliminate the "tyranny of the populated states" (then Virginia).
3. What we need is Senators to go back to being APPOINTED, rather than elected, to reduce the influence of out of state special interest groups and PACs.
1. It's spelled "populous", not "populace". Also, I support allowing small states to secede if they want to, though I am not sure if many, if any, small states would think that they would be better off by themselves even if the U.S. Senate was abolished.
2. Yes, I know this. Of course, I don't really view majority rule in itself as tyranny.
3. If we are going to keep the U.S. Senate, then this idea might actually have some merit to it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
