Some ideas to fix the senate un-balance

[fskimospy]

I just did, reread my previous msg. What you perceive as trampling is laughable imo. The minority is not enacting oppressive policy on the majority. It is blocking the majorities will, or at least slowing it down. Like our system was designed imo.

It is not blocking the majority’s will, it is enacting the monority’s will. The recent tax cut for billionaires was perhaps the most widely hated piece of enacted major legislation in US history, for example. I doubt most Americans wanted the donor class to be given more than a trillion dollars, paid for by raising their taxes, yet here we are.

We are in a place where Republicans no longer need to appeal to a majority of voters to take unified control of government. This should be terrifying to anyone interested in freedom.

 

[dank69]

They may be blocking policies you desire. But the minority is not getting their policies through neither. It is almost like the two sides need to come to an agreement on legislation.

Bullshit, a minority of people wanted the last tax cut.

 

[fskimospy]

Bullshit, a minority of people wanted the last tax cut.

Yeah I’m not sure how he got that.

Lowering regulations and taxes on billionaires is functionally the only motivating governing policy of the Republican Party and they got exactly what they wanted, despite getting a minority of votes.

 

[soulcougher73]

Does anyone else feel the term “minority” control or power, etc. is just code for GOP. But they know they can’t just say that without sounding like a partisan hack?

 

[dyna]

It is not blocking the majority’s will, it is enacting the monority’s will. The recent tax cut for billionaires was perhaps the most widely hated piece of enacted major legislation in US history, for example. I doubt most Americans wanted the donor class to be given more than a trillion dollars, paid for by raising their taxes, yet here we are.

We are in a place where Republicans no longer need to appeal to a majority of voters to take unified control of government. This should be terrifying to anyone interested in freedom.

They should allow individuals/corporations to opt-out of tax cuts. I am assuming you would opt-out if you could, correct?

 

[dank69]

They should allow individuals/corporations to opt-out of tax cuts. I am assuming you would opt-out if you could, correct?

Go fuck yourself.

 

[fskimospy]

Does anyone else feel the term “minority” control or power, etc. is just code for GOP. But they know they can’t just say that without sounding like a partisan hack?

Well in this case it is the GOP but it would be just as toxic for the country if the situation were reversed. In a democracy if large majorities of people aren’t getting what they prefer as policy on a wide range of issues for an extended period of time that’s corrosive to the system.

Overwhelming majorities want higher taxes on the rich. They are being lowered instead.

Overwhelming majorities of people want more gun control. It’s being loosened instead.

Overwhelming majorities want expanded access to health care. That’s being undermined.

I could go on and on. These aren’t little policies either, they are fundamental to life in the US. This is the tyranny of minority rule.

 

[fskimospy]

They should allow individuals/corporations to opt-out of tax cuts. I am assuming you would opt-out if you could, correct?

No, no one should be able to opt out of generally applicable laws. Period.

Should you be able to opt out of the laws against murder when you want to?

 

[mect]

News from this week about how the minority is oppressing the majority in America.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/06/mcconnell-election-reform-bill-1207702

 

[Maxima1]

The senate was not created for the benifit of slave holders. In fact, at the time, larger states whose population included the most slaves and whose economic value added the most value argued for a more proportional system which would have given them more representation in the senate. The current setup would be a negative for them.


AGAIN, THE PURPOSE OF THE SENATE IS TO REPRESENT THE STATE.

Ah, i was talking in general considering the content of the preceding posts. However, the Senate I think was part of the Faustian bargain. There were more slave-holding states at the time, and it's easy to see how the struggle for adding new states would lead to consideration of how it affects the balance of power.

"Balance of Power" in the Senate
Northern voting majorities in the lower house did not translate into political dominance. The fulcrum for proslavery forces resided in the upper house of Congress. There, constitutional compromise in 1787 had provided for exactly two senators per state, regardless of its population: the South, with its small white demographic relative to the North, benefited from this arrangement. Since 1815, sectional parity in the Senate had been achieved through paired admissions, leaving the North and South, at the time of Missouri territory application for statehood, at eleven states each.[56]

The South, voting as a bloc on measures that challenged slaveholding interests and augmented by defections from Free State Senators with Southern sympathies, was able to tally majorities. The Senate stood as the bulwark and source of the Slave Power – a power that required admission of slave states to the Union to preserve its national primacy.[57][58]

 

[dyna]

No, no one should be able to opt out of generally applicable laws. Period.

Should you be able to opt out of the laws against murder when you want to?

You shouldn't be able to opt-out of murder, just tax cuts. If based on principle you want to pay more to the government, you should be allowed to. If the majority of people choose to pay more then maybe it will sway congress to repeal the tax cut.

 

[soulcougher73]

Well in this case it is the GOP but it would be just as toxic for the country if the situation were reversed. In a democracy if large majorities of people aren’t getting what they prefer as policy on a wide range of issues for an extended period of time that’s corrosive to the system.

Overwhelming majorities want higher taxes on the rich. They are being lowered instead.

Overwhelming majorities of people want more gun control. It’s being loosened instead.

Overwhelming majorities want expanded access to health care. That’s being undermined.

I could go on and on. These aren’t little policies either, they are fundamental to life in the US. This is the tyranny of minority rule.

Oh I agree. I guess I just meant right now lol. But the GOP could always be the majority if they wants to try. Something about having a good message someone just said lol

 

[mect]

You shouldn't be able to opt-out of murder, just tax cuts. If based on principle you want to pay more to the government, you should be allowed to. If the majority of people choose to pay more then maybe it will sway congress to repeal the tax cut.

Everyone is able to pay additional taxes if they want to. It will never have the same effect as an actual tax increase.

 

[fskimospy]

You shouldn't be able to opt-out of murder, just tax cuts. If based on principle you want to pay more to the government, you should be allowed to. If the majority of people choose to pay more then maybe it will sway congress to repeal the tax cut.

Oh so when you realized how dumb the idea to opt out of generally applicable laws was you decided tax cuts were special.

That's convenient.

 

[ElFenix]

We aren't a democracy, we're a republic. SMH. What do they teach kids in school these days.?

the only difference between those two words is one is greek and one is latin. they both mean the same thing.

 

[Thrashard]

How to fix the balance ? They should all be lined up against the wall and shot in the head.

 

[ivwshane]

Fuck you Glen!!! Making me up vote your stupid comments

 

[FerrelGeek]

I wasnt talking about what we are. Im talking about true democracy. Its almost as if you havent paid attention to the flow of this thread.

I don't have time to catch up on a 10+ page thread. Sorry. But what we are, or are supposed to be as set up by our constitution, is the reality in which we find ourselves. What prompted my comment is that a nontrivial number of people don't seem to get that we aren't a true democracy vs a representative republic.

The original intent of the founders was to have the house be the voice of the people, hence representation based on population. The senate was to be the voice of the states, with representation chosen by each state's government. This was to ensure that each state had an equal voice regardless of population. This was done to appease the Articles of Confederationers and to allay the fears of the smaller states against tyranny of the majority. The point of how our government was intended to work was for it to be somewhat difficult to do things to ensure that laws and such were thought through and discussed.

Not saying that it worked out perfectly as people are far from perfect.

And to my initial post, pretty much the only time I hear people whining about tyranny of the majority / minority is when dems aren't getting their way. I'm sure the reps do it too, but the dems are more vocal about it.

 

[ElFenix]

The senate was to be the voice of the states, with representation chosen by each state's government. This was to ensure that each state had an equal voice regardless of population.

and it should have been done away with at the same time that senators were changed to direct election. it only makes sense if people are more loyal to their state than anything else (they're not) and voted in blocks (they don't).

The point of how our government was intended to work was for it to be somewhat difficult to do things to ensure that laws and such were thought through and discussed.

that requires good faith by members of government, something cocaine mitch isn't interested in.

 

[K1052]

that requires good faith by members of government, something cocaine mitch isn't interested in.

Yeah, the idea that Mitch is up for actual debate on the real merits of any legislation is out there. He quite literally exists only to preserve/expand his own power and that of conservatives on the judiciary at any cost (I mean he's actually told people this). That's the sum total of his ambition.

 

[Jon-T]

Does anyone else feel the term “minority” control or power, etc. is just code for GOP. But they know they can’t just say that without sounding like a partisan hack?

The terms Majority and Minority as in Majority Whip and Minority Leader have been in use for 100+ years.

Do you think this is some secret code devised in 2019?

 

[ivwshane]

The terms Majority and Minority as in Majority Whip and Minority Leader have been in use for 100+ years.

Do you think this is some secret code devised in 2019?

That's not what he was referring to. He was talking about party rule and which party has the most seats.