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.
mkpunk...you know better. Corruption is endemic in any system of government. Do you really think it matters is 10 states have $100 million in corruption, or if the federal government has $1 billion in corruption? Numbers chosen simply to illustrate the point. Corruption is the point. That and the fact it has not been prevented by the passage and ratification of the 17th, on any level. Meanwhile, states interests go unrepresented. I want that. Man is greedy. it is the human condition. Can't prevent it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
You should tell by my other post that I am not. Your proposal iis indefensible as well. I got a defense on mine, it prevents corruption on the state level trickling down to the federal level. Say Donald Trump contributed to New York legislature elections, he could then be voted into being a US Senator from New York. Do we really want that?
No. It's part of the checks and balances and serves a purpose. A state may want to have a liberal and a conservative both representing them. Nothing wrong with that.
Not as long as people have the right to vote and two good conservatives are running.
The Senate does not in any form, past or Present, ever represented the governors or mayors. It has always represented the people of the state they are from.
The senate was created so that each state could have equal voice on the national stage regardless of population.
The House is there so that the voices of the people are proportional(population).
Again, this isnt that hard to understand. If you believe your argument to be true, show me where the Connecticut compromise or the Virginia plan before it, ever said that the Senate would represent the governors or Mayors
The senate was not intended to represent the people. That is why it was originally more of an appointed position rather than elected. The founderers placed great stock in 'disinterestedness' I.e. Educated elites who were above the political fray, as the judiciary is supposed to be today.
There can be arguments for or against an ele ted senate or judiciary, but the fact is that this was not what the framers intended.
My house member until recent redistricting was a former C.C. Football star and ex sheriff with an AA degree. This is as the founders intended. My us senator is a self proclaimed 'mom in tennis shoes' who has a degree in recreation from WSU. This is not as the founders intended.
Two politicians at least provide a bit of protection in case one goes particularly bad.
And if it wasn't obvious, the system of 2 per state was set up that way to ensure that huge metropolitan areas didn't totally run the federal government, and ignore the needs of smaller states. Unfortunately, we all know that for the past 7 years (and for at least 1 more), the Senate, like the House, and even the Supreme Court, have been on "rubber stamp" mode and might as well not have existed at all. Heaven help us if the next President is allowed to reign as God-Emperor, as it won't take him or her long to abuse the power to new heights.
mkpunk...you know better. Corruption is endemic in any system of government. Do you really think it matters is 10 states have $100 million in corruption, or if the federal government has $1 billion in corruption? Numbers chosen simply to illustrate the point. Corruption is the point. That and the fact it has not been prevented by the passage and ratification of the 17th, on any level. Meanwhile, states interests go unrepresented. I want that. Man is greedy. it is the human condition. Can't prevent it.
So you're saying solution is moving it back to the legislature so the people are in-directly represented just because "corruption is imminent." That ship sailed as other posters have said. Too many people like me, would feel cheated that they cannot chose who their senators are. The biggest issue I see from this is that we lose the ability to possibly have both a Democrat and a Republican senator and would basically be at whatever the state legislature is. So take Arizona, regardless of the 2016 election, we'd have two Republican senators rather than maybe a Democrat beating the Republican candidate (McCain or his opponent in the primaries.) It also makes a virtual rubber stamp on the state level to keep say a McCain, Reed or Bird in as Senator. At least with the will of the electorate, we can vote them out in either the primaries or general election.
So you're saying solution is moving it back to the legislature so the people are in-directly represented just because "corruption is imminent." That ship sailed as other posters have said. Too many people like me, would feel cheated that they cannot chose who their senators are. The biggest issue I see from this is that we lose the ability to possibly have both a Democrat and a Republican senator and would basically be at whatever the state legislature is. So take Arizona, regardless of the 2016 election, we'd have two Republican senators rather than maybe a Democrat beating the Republican candidate (McCain or his opponent in the primaries.) It also makes a virtual rubber stamp on the state level to keep say a McCain, Reed or Bird in as Senator. At least with the will of the electorate, we can vote them out in either the primaries or general election.
all you are seeing is party politics
the fact is the senator should represent the state as a whole,,whats BEST FOR THE STATE...
my Senators: Kirsten Gillibrand, Chuck Schumer of NEW YORK, should represent the STATE OF NEW YORK not the freaking fascist liberal party of federal lala land
but no instead of helping to make votes that will HELP MY STATE, they vote party line lockstep with the other brown shirt liberals
the fact is the senator should represent the state as a whole,,whats BEST FOR THE STATE...
my Senators: Kirsten Gillibrand, Chuck Schumer of NEW YORK, should represent the STATE OF NEW YORK not the freaking fascist liberal party of federal lala land
but no instead of helping to make votes that will HELP MY STATE, they vote party line lockstep with the other brown shirt liberals
On the other hand, half the population is in very liberal NYC, so perhaps they are representing NY, just not in sync with how you wish NY was. And, of course, NYC is a majority of NY in State GDP. Upstate NY is dependent on NY, especially as much of it is , to say it mildly, economically challenged,
House of Representative - elected by the people in small districts, relative to entire state size and population. The people's house.
Senate - selected by the States as their representative.
Simple idea, the people get represented and the states get represented.
Another simple idea. Man is greedy. Greed leads to corruption.
Greed>Corruption>Inevitable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
So you're saying solution is moving it back to the legislature so the people are in-directly represented just because "corruption is imminent." That ship sailed as other posters have said. Too many people like me, would feel cheated that they cannot chose who their senators are. The biggest issue I see from this is that we lose the ability to possibly have both a Democrat and a Republican senator and would basically be at whatever the state legislature is. So take Arizona, regardless of the 2016 election, we'd have two Republican senators rather than maybe a Democrat beating the Republican candidate (McCain or his opponent in the primaries.) It also makes a virtual rubber stamp on the state level to keep say a McCain, Reed or Bird in as Senator. At least with the will of the electorate, we can vote them out in either the primaries or general election.
I don't want to hear about the law. I just want to know if you think there would be a big difference (good or bad) in how things get done if each state only had 1 US Senator instead of 2.
Reading and comprehension needs to be required criteria for any senator.
We need to tell them what they need to do for us, not what they 'promise' to do for us.
Should be recalled if action plan to accomplish our requirements not met.
Actually, one is not enough and two is too many.
One major problem is the machinery that these irrelevent representatives fit into. We get a false sense of 'relief' by casting votes, isolated changes in voting choice do not budge the machine.
Political world of voters and representatives is random at best, the result is a lifeboat with out of sync rowers that appears to head toward a distant shore for a moment and then out of sight of land.
The number of senators is irrelevant to the other considerations that cover their time in office, perks and of course the need to ban lawyers from dominating our government and binding us to laws that are so interpretive as to give lawyers life long employment. When you can't even write a will without a lawyer, you know you are in trouble as a country.
When a lawyer says, 'you can keep your doctor, PERIOD!' there isn't an english speaking person who feels they don't understand what he said. Yet, those words overtime, became meaningless sounds that may have as well been mimicked and mindlessly repeated by a bluejay or crow.
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.
