As many of you know, the US Congress is composed of two bodies, the Senate and the House. Every state in the Union gets two represenatives/senators. In the house, each state is alloted representatives based on population. This has the effect of giving small states a greater say in government than states with larger populations. It is, anti-democratic in that sense. Senate rules make the organization even less democratic, in order to pass a law it requires that a super majority vote in the afirmative. The Senate also has special responsiblities like advising and consenting to treaties and presidential appointments. And in recent times the Senate has become a road block to presidential appointments and to key legistation because of the super majority requirement. Is it time to get rid of the Senate?
Lets get rid of all politicians! Use the INTERNET and TV to have bills brought Boot and discussed with anyone then vote on the bills over the net after a period of time debating it. Power back to the people not large companies that pay the politic ans off for everything they want done.
It's time to get rid of all of them--Senate, CONgress, everyone. We would save millions of dollars. We should become isolationists, elect one leader, and just enforce the laws we have now. We don't need any more from them. They have damaged enough.
Nope. I believe, FULLY, in the two house system, broken though it may be. Just get rid of the filibuster, and I'll be happy. I like what the Senate does and I think it's role as the more powerful* of the two houses is spot on. ~String __________________________________________________________ *The Senate has the sole authority to approve judges in the court system, cabinet appointees, ratify treaties and try the POTUS if he is impeached.
I'd rather get rid of the Electoral College, since it disenfranchises Republicans in predominantly Democrat states, Democrats in predominantly Republican states and third party voters everywhere.
The one thing the EC forces presidents to do--which I like--is to pay attention to rural and lower populated states to a greater degree than they would without the EC. If it went by purely popular vote, then they could just hover in the big states and big cities without worrying about the little guys. Remember: we aren't a pure democracy, we were never intended to be, nor should we be. ~String
I know we aren't a pure democracy. But the fact that we elect representatives instead of voting on every issue directly satisfies the requirement of a representative republic. It doesn't really equal things out as much as its supporters hope, in my opinion. Which states would a politician rather win; Texas or Maine? California or Wyoming? Florida or South Dakota? Right now you can win California by one vote and lose Montana by a mile and still come out ahead. Getting rid of the EC would change that.
I'm aware of all those things. But the EC gives slightly more weight to the smaller states than they would have without it. In fact, because of the way states are divided (Texas is a red state, California & New York as Blue states, Ohio and Florida as swing states) the election is very much decided in the medium to small states BECAUSE they are all swing states. Without that, all a president would need to do is focus on Texas, Florida, California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Ohio and maybe Michigan. Every other state could easily be ignored. ~String
I still don't see how the EC keeps smaller states in the mix. You can still win the presidency by winning enough big and medium-sized states by a few votes and losing all the rest by a wide margin. That's like saying that one voter in California is worth more than millions of people in Maine or South Dakota. To me, that means the voters in the little states aren't getting a fair shake (not to mention the disenfranchisement that occurs for non-Democrats in California and non-Republicans in Texas, etc.) The way I see it, your example only works if enough big/medium-sized states are split between the two major parties. What happens if, say, 20 years from now, all the big states are solidly Democrat or solidly Republican? A candidate could completely ignore smaller states at that point and still easily win an election. Electing presidents with a popular vote will ensure that never happens.
Are you crazy? The Senate is basically a matured version of the House. If anything get rid of the house. But as I see it - get rid of none. Your argument basically boils down to; the Senate is preventing Obama from succeeding in his agenda...get rid of them.
I don't think small state voters would be OK with losing the power that the Senate gives them. But the Senate over-representing small states makes the USA undemocratic similar to how the Lebanse Democracy is structured to make Lebanon undemocratic. I would prefer that one branch of Congress be Seven people elected nation wide and that all bills start with them and therefore the conference committee source of corruption and chaos would be done away with. The other branch of Congress would be 200 sequestered Americans chosen at random and paid twice US median household income. This branch would probably vote down corruption and and government of by and for large corporations. By sequestering these people you deny the would be corrupters access to them. I wouldn't care if some of them are illiterate retards because America's problem is not that it's politicians are not smart enough. America's problem is that smart politicians are capable of choosing to believe whatever will help them accumulate power without being conscious of how corrupt they have become to gain power. So one branch being real people who will have no power when their term is up is a needed check on the politicians. I hear that the Democracy of ancient Athens was based on randomly selected people rather than on elections.
I think the whole thing wouldn't be an issue if the federal government were to stay as much out of politics as possible, and only do basic jobs. The rest could be left to the states. I.e, make the states politically independent, so that way, the conservative states and liberal states don't bicker.
They need a bunch of Constitutional lawyers to cut extraneous government agencies and jobs, as well as to level charges of treason, accepting bribes, and unprofessional conduct where they apply.
Funny you should say this. I have always favored one branch of the Congress to be a "jury" style (as in, chosen by lottery) branch who have no right to propose legislation, but are merely given the right to debate any piece of legislation for one day and the vote to approve (or deny) it AND have the right to nullify any law, act or legal governmental creation. As for an "Executive Counsel" who writes all legislation, I recently wrote that NEITHER branch (if something like our current government survives) should have the right to create legislation and that all of that should be vested in another "group" who proposes all legislation and it is passed on to the legislature to approve. Odd, that we have come to such similar conclusions. Right on Nirakar! ~String
String, your point was maybe valid 100 years ago, but today with instant information, do we really need a candidate to visit every state? If one is interested he/she can find out everything about a candidate, so no personal visit to the state is required. The EC should be thrown out like an ugly child... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You said concentrate on.And are the small state's needs much more different than a big one's? Also the EC doesn't change the fact that it is better to win Texas than the smallest 12 (or whatever number) states together... Anyhow, the "winner takes all" bullshit should be thrown out too....
As to your point about Texas. You are wrong. Because of "winner takes all" the democratic presidential candidate rarely focuses any attention on Texas because he stands no chance of winning it. Just like Republicans don't even spend that much time in CA and NY. No point. So they focus on the smaller swing states. ~String
