• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
994
126
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/30/abolish-the-senate-its-the-only-way-to-rein-in-modern-presidents/

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/4/18125539/john-dingell-abolish-senate

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/24/democrats-senate-constitution-219033

https://www.gq.com/story/the-case-for-abolishing-the-senate


A few different stories / editorials on the subject. It has become quite apparent that the left is NOT interested in a the protection of rights or keeping the system of government we have had in place for centuries, but to do away with anything that might stand in the way of their power and control. We have both a House of Reps (number of votes based on state population) and a Senate (all states get an equal say regardless of population). Much like the electoral college this helps buffer things from flavor of the day ideas changing our laws and norms willy nilly and any one state becoming too powerful. But, the means justify the ends, anything they can do to to force people into their way, they are for. Liberals laugh at Trump for exploring buying Greenland while they're talking about abolishing the Senate. Today's radical left for you.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
6,941
1,759
136
Projection to the extreme. It's an interesting idea to get rid of the bicameral legislature. Obviously not going to happen even if it was a good idea, but I don't mind such a thing as a basis for discussing the intended and actual functions of our governmental system.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
994
126
Projection to the extreme. It's an interesting idea to get rid of the bicameral legislature. Obviously not going to happen even if it was a good idea, but I don't mind such a thing as a basis for discussing the intended and actual functions of our governmental system.

I don't see it as a good idea, just like I don't see getting rid of the electoral college as such. I think both serve an important purpose. Having a house and senate gives us the best of both worlds and gives value to having a larger population as well as protects small states from effectively having no say.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
7,672
3,452
146
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/30/abolish-the-senate-its-the-only-way-to-rein-in-modern-presidents/

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/4/18125539/john-dingell-abolish-senate

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/24/democrats-senate-constitution-219033

https://www.gq.com/story/the-case-for-abolishing-the-senate


A few different stories / editorials on the subject. It has become quite apparent that the left is NOT interested in a the protection of rights or keeping the system of government we have had in place for centuries, but to do away with anything that might stand in the way of their power and control. We have both a House of Reps (number of votes based on state population) and a Senate (all states get an equal say regardless of population). Much like the electoral college this helps buffer things from flavor of the day ideas changing our laws and norms willy nilly and any one state becoming too powerful. But, the means justify the ends, anything they can do to to force people into their way, they are for. Liberals laugh at Trump for exploring buying Greenland while they're talking about abolishing the Senate. Today's radical left for you.
No, they don't, you partisan hack.

GTFO.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
33,436
6,503
126
I don't see it as a good idea, just like I don't see getting rid of the electoral college as such. I think both serve an important purpose. Having a house and senate gives us the best of both worlds and gives value to having a larger population as well as protects small states from effectively having no say.
The EC provides no utility, it just makes candidates chase presently competitive states and ignore everything else.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
68,544
16,394
136
The easiest way to look at the role of the senate is to ask yourself if we were creating a government from scratch today would we make something like it? The answer is obviously no.

There’s no practical way to abolish the senate so there’s not much to be said about that. What there IS a way to do though is to add a lot more states. Make DC into a few, add Puerto Rico, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: soulcougher73

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
33,436
6,503
126
The easiest way to look at the role of the senate is to ask yourself if we were creating a government from scratch today would we make something like it? The answer is obviously no.

There’s no practical way to abolish the senate so there’s not much to be said about that. What there IS a way to do though is to add a lot more states. Make DC into a few, add Puerto Rico, etc.
Also float the house seat count with population since I sincerely doubt that 750K per rep is a good level of representation for the "people's house". No other developed country has anything close to our ratio for a lower house.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
68,544
16,394
136
The EC provides no utility, it just makes candidates chase presently competitive states and ignore everything else.
Yes, all the electoral college does is more closely align presidential policies with Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida instead of New York, California, and Texas. I have never heard a good reason for why that’s better.

Hopefully we can continue making progress towards abolishing it.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
13,182
3,750
136
I don't see it as a good idea, just like I don't see getting rid of the electoral college as such. I think both serve an important purpose. Having a house and senate gives us the best of both worlds and gives value to having a larger population as well as protects small states from effectively having no say.
Would you like to get rid of #MoscowMitch though?

Also, did Trump push birtherism?

And can you explain to me whats going on here


 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
6,941
1,759
136
Yes, all the electoral college does is more closely align presidential policies with Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida instead of New York, California, and Texas. I have never heard a good reason for why that’s better.

Hopefully we can continue making progress towards abolishing it.
Swing states do change over time, but the principle of what you say still holds.

I think the biggest issue is not the EC at the federal level but rather how many states divvy their votes as winner take all. If it were proportional somehow, this would eliminate the problem. Of course, any state can change, but why would a ruling party choose to give up EC votes?
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
33,436
6,503
126
Yes, all the electoral college does is more closely align presidential policies with Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida instead of New York, California, and Texas. I have never heard a good reason for why that’s better.

Hopefully we can continue making progress towards abolishing it.
I mean ostensibly its chief purpose was to keep a nutcase out of the WH...the current president is spending his day tweeting that Google manipulated the vote count by millions in an election he won the EC in, attacking his former Press Secretary, and arguing that the press is to blame for an economy slipping towards recession. I think it's safe to consider the EC's protection in this regard a failed experiment.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
68,544
16,394
136
Swing states do change over time, but the principle of what you say still holds.

I think the biggest issue is not the EC at the federal level but rather how many states divvy their votes as winner take all. If it were proportional somehow, this would eliminate the problem. Of course, any state can change, but why would a ruling party choose to give up EC votes?
I think the popular vote interstate compact is really our best and only hope for eliminating the EC. One big advantage of it over states switching to proportional allocation is that the result of the popular vote interstate compact is entirely clear. With proportional EC vote allocation where some states do it and others don't all sorts of electoral college weirdness could result. With the popular vote compact it's just whoever gets the most votes, wins.

I think if you were able to take partisanship out of it people would generally agree that the person with the most votes should win. We may have to wait until Texas goes blue one presidential election or something though - then I suspect you'll see a stampede of conservatives who were previously big EC supporters suddenly come down in favor of abolishing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheVrolok

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
32,887
2,783
126
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/30/abolish-the-senate-its-the-only-way-to-rein-in-modern-presidents/

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/4/18125539/john-dingell-abolish-senate

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/24/democrats-senate-constitution-219033

https://www.gq.com/story/the-case-for-abolishing-the-senate


A few different stories / editorials on the subject. It has become quite apparent that the left is NOT interested in a the protection of rights or keeping the system of government we have had in place for centuries, but to do away with anything that might stand in the way of their power and control. We have both a House of Reps (number of votes based on state population) and a Senate (all states get an equal say regardless of population). Much like the electoral college this helps buffer things from flavor of the day ideas changing our laws and norms willy nilly and any one state becoming too powerful. But, the means justify the ends, anything they can do to to force people into their way, they are for. Liberals laugh at Trump for exploring buying Greenland while they're talking about abolishing the Senate. Today's radical left for you.
Umm OK!! hahahahhahahhaahahhaahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahaahhahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahaahahhahaahahhahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahaahahahahha…...help me help me I am laughing so hared I can`t breath.....ahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahha
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
23,611
8,298
136
Political article claims the Senate protects minority interests. How is stealing a SC nominee from Obama accomplishing that?
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
994
126
The easiest way to look at the role of the senate is to ask yourself if we were creating a government from scratch today would we make something like it? The answer is obviously no.

There’s no practical way to abolish the senate so there’s not much to be said about that. What there IS a way to do though is to add a lot more states. Make DC into a few, add Puerto Rico, etc.

I don't see why we wouldn't create similar representation in government today, that is if we really do care at all about the rights of individual states and think the voices of all 50 states should carry weight.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
32,887
2,783
126
The Senate does not protect minority interests! The present Senate protects the Presidents agenda!! The present Senate makes a mockery of what the people want and desire! The present Senate in its present form is a partisan tool!! etc.....
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
994
126
The Senate does not protect minority interests! The present Senate protects the Presidents agenda!! The present Senate makes a mockery of what the people want and desire! The present Senate in its present for is a partisan tool!! etc.....

Do you think our government would be best without the senate though?
 

ewdotson

Senior member
Oct 30, 2011
780
589
136
Other's mileage may vary, but I think the *idea* of the Senate is fine, but the arbitrary and unchanging nature of the state lines is problematic. My emperor-for-the-day solution would involve redrawing the state lines every 50 years.

No, I have no idea who that would work logistically. I'm just an ideas guy. :p
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
7,563
4,538
136
On top of what others have said... this is a bit rich coming from an OP who practically masturbates to the thought of Republicans establishing permanent one-party rule and ending this pesky "democracy" thing that allows non-conservative views to exist.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
994
126
On top of what others have said... this is a bit rich coming from an OP who practically masturbates to the thought of Republicans establishing permanent one-party rule and ending this pesky "democracy" thing that allows non-conservative views to exist.

I celebrate Trump winning in our democratic process. You are the ones that want to use impeachment as a political tool for not getting your way, not it's real purpose... speaking of ending that pesky democracy thing.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
59,835
11,803
126
I celebrate Trump winning in our democratic process. You are the ones that want to use impeachment as a political tool for not getting your way, not it's real purpose... speaking of ending that pesky democracy thing.
So, uhh, you support minority rule with a radical right wing agenda? And a President who would be under indictment if he were not President?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

ASK THE COMMUNITY