• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Should Congress be restructured?

mal3volent

mal3volent

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
40,091
[The] House is much more representative of our population than the Senate. For some archaic and stupid reason, North Dakota and Arkansas have the same number of Senators as California and New York. It's the apparatus that's kept old white men in power for over 200 years.

Edit by mod: Copied and shortened for OP.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mal3volent said:
I'd love to hear one reason that wasn't invalidated by the advent of airplanes and the internet...
Click to expand...
The advent of airplanes and the internet actually made it all a lot worse (most liberals will point to RUSSIA ADS as living, breathing proof...) read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers (select portions will best explain why we have a senate and not just a congress and why both are superior to one or the other alone)...
 
Captain.Heroin said:
The advent of airplanes and the internet actually made it all a lot worse (most liberals will point to RUSSIA ADS as living, breathing proof...) read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers (select portions will best explain why we have a senate and not just a congress and why both are superior to one or the other alone)...
Click to expand...

Ok, I skimmed it but help me out here.

All states, regardless of population, should have the same amount of representation in the Senate because ________________________________.
 
mal3volent said:
Ok, I skimmed it but help me out here.

All states, regardless of population, should have the same amount of representation in the Senate because ________________________________.
Click to expand...
aw if I didn't have to go real quick....


in essence there's a give and take between larger/smaller republic representation bodies. Smaller ones are easier to buy out. Larger ones can have the far right/left candidates i.e. AOC, King, etc. that make the nation look like a bunch of radical terrorists. This wasn't so much Madison's argument. I'm trying to modernize it.

I'm also paraphrasing from memory and will sit down and give you a better explanation *I hate to do this but real life is calling I gotta run bye*
 
mal3volent said:
All states, regardless of population, should have the same amount of representation in the Senate because ________________________________.
Click to expand...

You'd have to review the documents that outline the legislative branch for the exact wording or detail, but I for one support the existing senate-house model. The intent was for the federal gov't to fill the gaps and represent our nation on the global stage, but that we remain a federation of states who for the most part make rules for themselves and manage themselves. Federal gov't was intended to keep the states equally represented, but there is a question of how much voice does each get in making national decisions? The house allows a voice based on the population size, while the senate ensures an equal voice regardless of size. Lacking a Senate half of congress risks silencing (or steamrolling) the smaller states, likely driving them to leave the group. Likewise, only having a Senate would mean that bigger states like CA or TX wouldn't be able to enact laws that serve a greater portion of the nation's populace. Both are necessary to ensure fairness when the US Gov't has to speak and act for ALL the states. Does this make sense?
 
Mal I can’t blame you for hating the senate. Especially with Moscow Mitch being the first clown out of the Miata? Lol. Zero hope it isn’t bought out by Russia 100% in 10 years.

There’s a reason it should exist today even if it’s currently failing us all.
 
TheLoveBandit said:
The house allows a voice based on the population size, while the senate ensures an equal voice regardless of size. Lacking a Senate half of congress risks silencing (or steamrolling) the smaller states, likely driving them to leave the group. Likewise, only having a Senate would mean that bigger states like CA or TX wouldn't be able to enact laws that serve a greater portion of the nation's populace. Both are necessary to ensure fairness when the US Gov't has to speak and act for ALL the states. Does this make sense?
Click to expand...
it makes absolutely perfect sense and it's (the balance of interests is) surely exactly what the framers intended.

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
it makes absolutely perfect sense
Click to expand...

It does? Still seems unfair to me.

I'm not asking for what the rationale was when they created the law. I'm asking why is it not fucked up for Rhode Island/Montana citizens to have the same representation in the Senate as say, California. In Rhode Island, 2 senators represent 1.3 million constituents. In California, 2 senators represent 39 million constituents.
 
mal3volent said:
It does? Still seems unfair to me.

I'm not asking for what the rationale was when they created the law. I'm asking why is it not fucked up for Rhode Island/Montana citizens to have the same representation in the Senate as say, California. In Rhode Island, 2 senators represent 1.3 million constituents. In California, 2 senators represent 39 million constituents.
Click to expand...
States like the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana have lower GDP, less nat'l investment (because of less big cities/big multinational corporation investment etc) and the payoff of living in a state like this would be greater senatorial representation.

To be fair two people for 400,000+ people is not a significant amount of face to face time with ones' senator. Just my 2c.
 
alasdairm said:
^ it's balanced by the house where rhode islands has 2 representatives whereas california has 53.

alasdair
Click to expand...

Lol no.

Our elected officials are supposed to represent their constituents. Actual people. Not borders on a map.

Representation should be proportional to population, full stop.

All elections should go by popular vote.

The power conservatives have in the Senate is totally unearned. A Senator from California was elected by 39 million people. A senator from Rhode Island was elected by 1.3 million.

That means, theoretically, the will of 1.3 million people = the will of 39 million people.

How is that fair?

If the House and Senate all voted together, it wouldn't have as much of an impact. But when the Senate has the power to routinely shut down bills passed by the House, that is a very fucked up situation.
 
mal3volent said:
Representation should be proportional to population, full stop.

All elections should go by popular vote.
Click to expand...
that's one opinion, sure.

if that were the case, then the bigger states would steamroller the smaller states every time which, i'm sure residents of vermont and the dakotas would agree, isn't fair either.

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
that's one opinion, sure.

if that were the case, then the bigger states would steamroller the smaller states every time which, i'm sure residents of vermont and the dakotas would agree, isn't fair either.

alasdair
Click to expand...

Why should the imaginary lines you live within determine how much weight your voice has in the US Senate?

For me, 1 person = 1 person
 
why shouldn't it? it's the united states of america.

for you, 1 person = 1 person. a perfectly valid position.

the founding fathers disagreed with you and tried to balance the voices of large and small states.

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
why shouldn't it? it's the united states of america.

for you, 1 person = 1 person. a perfectly valid position.

the founding fathers disagreed with you and tried to balance the voices of large and small states.

alasdair
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about what was

I'm talking about what should be...

I know you can understand... might does not equal right.
 
i understand. you think that's how it should be. again, perfectly valid.

it's also perfectly valid to believe that it should stay the way it is for the reasons i've given (among others).

alasdair
 
if it was just the senate i think it would be unfair. but in conjunction with the house i think it's a fair attempt at balance.

alasdair
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top