Some ideas to fix the senate un-balance

[fskimospy]

I'm unhappy with mitch McConnell who clearly broke senate rules and violated his constitutional duty. The senate isn't broken, mitch McConnell is.

We don't destroy the presidency and get rid of the office of the President because we have a piece of shit in office. We vote him out and put rules and laws in place to ensure such abuse can't happen again.

I see no evidence that the other Republicans in the Senate are unhappy with his performance and would not try and replicate it if he died tomorrow. Mitch McConnell is not the problem, the Republican Party is the problem and it's not going anywhere. We need to change our institutions to work with how the world exists today, not how we wish it worked based on ideas two centuries old.

So far no one has argued against the reasoning for the senate's creation in the first place. All I've heard are reasons why the house needs to be fixed, gerrymanderering, unequal representation, obstruction by the minority. Those are all issues directly related to the house.

I'm arguing against the Senate today, not the Senate 230 years ago because we are alive today.

 

[ivwshane]

If Virginia had been faced with an identical situation to California today it is highly likely they would never have signed on to the Constitution, considering they had grave misgivings when the disparity was 1/7th of what it is today. Why on earth would that not be extremely, extremely relevant as to whether or not we continue on with their agreement today?

Also, who gives a shit what the founding fathers signed on to as they also signed on to keeping slavery around. In the past we recognized when things weren't working and changed them, this fetishization of what people thought who have been dead for two centuries is baffling to me.



I never argued for the abolition of the Senate (although I would be fine with it). Also as said above I frankly don't give a shit what the founding fathers agreed to. They've been dead 200 years. We're alive. What's important now is what government works for us.

You don't care about what the founding fathers thought and I don't care about a hypothetical that you use to make your case. Unironically though, you cared about what some of the founding fathers thought when they agreed with you.

I agree the system is broken, I disagree that the problem lies with the senate. You are advocating for back surgery to deal with a cold sore.

 

[ivwshane]

I see no evidence that the other Republicans in the Senate are unhappy with his performance and would not try and replicate it if he died tomorrow. Mitch McConnell is not the problem, the Republican Party is the problem and it's not going anywhere. We need to change our institutions to work with how the world exists today, not how we wish it worked based on ideas two centuries old.



I'm arguing against the Senate today, not the Senate 230 years ago because we are alive today.

I disagree the republican party is already dead. The trash that is left will and is slowly being taken out. The focus should be exposing them and safeguarding our institutions so that an abuse of power (which is what the real problem is) doesn't happen again.

 

[fskimospy]

You don't care about what the founding fathers thought and I don't care about a hypothetical that you use to make your case. Unironically though, you cared about what some of the founding fathers thought when they agreed with you.

I was using your argument, not mine. I do not give a single shit what Alexander Hamilton thought in terms of how I think we should structure our government today.

Population disparities were directly salient then and they are directly salient now. They are drastically worse now than they were in the past and in the past they were a point of heavy contention. That is highly relevant as to whether or not we should choose to continue with that system.

I agree the system is broken, I disagree that the problem lies with the senate. You are advocating for back surgery to deal with a cold sore.

Okay, well I don't want to hear you complain when the next Democratic president isn't able to accomplish any of their major policy objectives and then America throws the Republicans back into power because nothing is getting done.

 

[soulcougher73]

Yeah, the great thing about the constitution is that it was agreed upon by all. So whether or not some had concerns really doesn't mean shit as they all signed on to it.

What you are advocating for is the abolition of the senate and to be replaced with another house or not at all. Both would be pointless and would directly conflict with what the founding fathers agreed to and reasoned was necessary.

The founders were smart men...for their time. By todays standards they are not. We have gained so much more knowledge since then it seems silly to think they are the be all, end all, of every discussion as of they were living gods who had the final say and never question their wisdom. The system they designed would never pass muster today if a new country were being formed and was looking to design its government.

 

[ivwshane]

I was using your argument, not mine. I do not give a single shit what Alexander Hamilton thought in terms of how I think we should structure our government today.

Population disparities were directly salient then and they are directly salient now. They are drastically worse now than they were in the past and in the past they were a point of heavy contention. That is highly relevant as to whether or not we should choose to continue with that system.



Okay, well I don't want to hear you complain when the next Democratic president isn't able to accomplish any of their major policy objectives and then America throws the Republicans back into power because nothing is getting done.

Again, your issue is with the house not the senate. For example we don't have immigration reform because the senate refused to do its job, they did, we don't have immigration reform because of the house.

I'll complain when nothing is attempted or rules are broken in order to obstruct. I'm all about the slow and steady route, which is why I supported Hillary over Bernie. I realize change happens slowly.

 

[ivwshane]

The founders were smart men...for their time. By todays standards they are not. We have gained so much more knowledge since then it seems silly to think they are the be all, end all, of every discussion as of they were living gods who had the final say and never question their wisdom. The system they designed would never pass muster today if a new country were being formed and was looking to design its government.

Then I suggest you and others start coming up with a better system first before destroying the old one

 

[soulcougher73]

Then I suggest you and others start coming up with a better system first before destroying the old one

That would be way harder than fixing the current one with the tools they gave us, as they were at least smart enough to know they were not smart enough for eternity.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, your issue is with the house not the senate. For example we don't have immigration reform because the senate refused to do its job, they did, we don't have immigration reform because of the house.

I'll complain when nothing is attempted or rules are broken in order to obstruct. I'm all about the slow and steady route, which is why I supported Hillary over Bernie. I realize change happens slowly.

No, my issue is with the Senate. From a governance standpoint I have no issue with the House deciding not to act on immigration reform as even had gerrymandering not been a thing Republicans probably would have controlled the chamber and they didn't want to pass immigration reform. That's how our system is supposed to work, even if the outcomes are shitty.

 

[hal2kilo]

I disagree the republican party is already dead. The trash that is left will and is slowly being taken out. The focus should be exposing them and safeguarding our institutions so that an abuse of power (which is what the real problem is) doesn't happen again.

Do you think the composition of people on the SCOTUS isn't a direct result of the Senate's dysfunction?

 

[ivwshane]

That would be way harder than fixing the current one with the tools they gave us, as they were at least smart enough to know they were not smart enough for eternity.

Again, by all means, come up with those fixes.

 

[soulcougher73]

Again, by all means, come up with those fixes.

That is kind of what is being discussed right now in this thread, is it not?

I think the easist way to discuss it is to come at it from a view of, would you accept this today if it were being implemented. Not discussing "well this is how they set it up, so it must be right" mentality.

 

[ivwshane]

Do you think the composition of people on the SCOTUS isn't a direct result of the Senate's dysfunction?

As I've already stated, mitch McConnell broke the rules. That doesn't mean we should get rid of the senate, it means we should put rules in place so it can't happen again.
So other than at least one pick, no I don't think the make up of the SCOTUS is a result of senate dysfunction.

 

[ivwshane]

That is kind of what is being discussed right now in this thread, is it not?

I'm not hearing a single solution to the problems people are complaining about.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not hearing a single solution to the problems people are complaining about.

As has already been discussed, creating more states would be a good start. We should consider consolidating others as again, as a good example still to this day no one has explained to me a single, solitary advantage to the United States of having two Dakotas.

 

[ivwshane]

No, my issue is with the Senate. From a governance standpoint I have no issue with the House deciding not to act on immigration reform as even had gerrymandering not been a thing Republicans probably would have controlled the chamber and they didn't want to pass immigration reform. That's how our system is supposed to work, even if the outcomes are shitty.

It's amazing how, for you, one body is working as it was designed to (even though it's not but that's for another discussion) and the other body isn't working as it was designed to despite me explaining to you that's it's working exactly as it was designed (other than the issues caused by mitch).

The house was designed to be the body that closely represents the will of the people which is why the number of house seats are determined by population (which is coinincidently why it's broken).

The senate was designed to ensure all states (not people) were represented equally regardless of population size.

 

[ivwshane]

As has already been discussed, creating more states would be a good start. We should consider consolidating others as again, as a good example still to this day no one has explained to me a single, solitary advantage to the United States of having two Dakotas.

I wasn't aware that states were created specifically to give the United States some sort of advantage.

 

[fskimospy]

I wasn't aware that states were created specifically to give the United States some sort of advantage.

Yes, that's the exact reason they were created. I mean why else would we bother creating something if we weren't better off for having it?

 

[Starbuck1975]

That's like saying Winter Polar Vortex and Frostbite are seperate topics.

They are. One is a weather event, the other is a medical condition. You can have one without the other.

Your solution is to prevent frostbite by ending Polar Vortexes.

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, that's the exact reason they were created. I mean why else would we bother creating something if we weren't better off for having it?

Because they were territories and the people who lived there wanted representation and the benefits that go along with statehood?

 

[fskimospy]

It's amazing how, for you, one body is working as it was designed to (even though it's not but that's for another discussion) and the other body isn't working as it was designed to despite me explaining to you that's it's working exactly as it was designed (other than the issues caused by mitch).

Because again, the circumstances under which that body was created have changed dramatically. How many times do I have to repeat this?

Remember, the disparity is SEVEN HUNDRED PERCENT GREATER than how it was envisioned to be. That's absolutely colossal by any rational measure.

The house was designed to be the body that closely represents the will of the people which is why the number of house seats are determined by population (which is coinincidently why it's broken).

The senate was designed to ensure all states (not people) were represented equally regardless of population size.

While gerrymandering is absolutely a problem it's one that's also probably pretty easily fixed. Overall the House is fine as it is. The senate is what needs a radical overhaul. Remember,

Seven.

Hundred.

Percent.

 

[fskimospy]

Because they were territories and the people who lived there wanted representation and the benefits that go along with statehood?

So you think the US created states out of the kindness of their heart because otherwise the people in those territories would have been sad?

 

[brandonbull]

Ok, why should the state of Wyoming have the same representation as CA or TX? When those states dwarf Wyoming in every single measure possible, including size of economy and importance to the union.

The idea of independent, co-equal states deciding to act together died in 1865 if not sooner. I know that isn't taught in the south, but as a nation it is time to move on from that idea.

Does any state assign their state senators as one per county? I don't think so, I think they are assigned by population. So if it works within the state, why wouldn't it work as a nation?

They don't have the same representation.

1. Wyoming: 2 Senators and 1 Representative
2. California: 2 Senators and 53 Representatives
3. Texas: 2 Senators and 36 Representatives.

 

[ivwshane]

Because again, the circumstances under which that body was created have changed dramatically. How many times do I have to repeat this?

Remember, the disparity is SEVEN HUNDRED PERCENT GREATER than how it was envisioned to be. That's absolutely colossal by any rational measure.



While gerrymandering is absolutely a problem it's one that's also probably pretty easily fixed. Overall the House is fine as it is. The senate is what needs a radical overhaul. Remember,

Seven.

Hundred.

Percent.

Which, again, is exactly as it was intended. There are no rules, like there are with the house, that specify ratios or provide for changes in the number of Representatives relating to the size of the states population. Don't you find it odd that the founding fathers were smart enough to provide a provision for the house that said as the population increases more seats should be had to represent them but that no such provision was made for the senate?

 

[brandonbull]

Unequal representation as compared to the original design of the country is present in both the House and the Senate. The perversion of the intent of the House has been more deliberate but the Senate in effect is just as corrupted if not moreso.

The United States was never designed to function in a situation where those representing 11% of the population could stop all legislation.

You are misrepresenting what the functions of each of the 3 Chambers of Congress are and the purpose behind them.