Trump Predictions

[ard]

Originally Posted by bcredliner

Who are the individuals you are referencing? And your opinion of a solution is what?

If you look at lowly populated states- like nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, etc...they all have 2 senators....so 12 senators for 8, 9 million people.... against California with 40Million people and 2 senators.


The fact is that these low populated states create an over-representation of this white, christian population.


Im not refering to 'individuals'...its a structural issue.


Its part of the grand bargain at the constitutional convention- it was designed to ensure the agricultural states wouldnt be over-whelmed by the populated 'city' states. Now our massive population centers are- by all states have the same number of senators plust by virtue of the fillibuster.


Solution? Dunno.




EOD... lol at 'back in the old days it was all great'. Not hardly. It was not unusual for state level gridlock to result in no senators being sent to DC. For years and years. It took 50 years for this failure to manifest and almost 100 years to fix it with the 17 amendment. Too bad we dont go make to only men and land holders being able to vote, eh?

[EODguy]

Two senators per state is fair as a senator is supposed to be doing what's best for their individual state and is NOT based upon population....

Going your route to disenfranchise people is a sure way to start a civil war.

Those large populations are represented by having a shit ton of congressmen that pretty much guarantees that the House can bring up bills that are only wanted by certain cities, so you can't have it both ways.

I do think that we have too many people who have zero clue about our Constitution and how government works that vote.

You yourself should read the Federalist papers and the Anti-federalist papers....

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

[bcredliner]

I don't think major changes in our structure are necessary for the government to work effectively enough. I would rather stick with the devil we know than one we don't know.

Bipartisan voting once in a while would be a dramatic improvement. I don't see anything congress has done to improve working together for the betterment of the country but rather lots of working toward what's good for that individual and their party.

Unfortunately or fortunately, take your pick, it is still up to the voters. We need to find better ways to pressure congress into doing their job.

[crystalworks]

Originally Posted by bcredliner

I don't think major changes in our structure are necessary for the government to work effectively enough. I would rather stick with the devil we know than one we don't know.

Bipartisan voting once in a while would be a dramatic improvement. I don't see anything congress has done to improve working together for the betterment of the country but rather lots of working toward what's good for that individual and their party.

Unfortunately or fortunately, take your pick, it is still up to the voters. We need to find better ways to pressure congress into doing their job.

Amen!

A very easy and effective way would be to get rid of Citizens United. That would very quickly swing the influence of the vote back in favor of the actual citizenry. Then you could further do away with lobbying.

[bcredliner]

Originally Posted by crystalworks

Amen!

A very easy and effective way would be to get rid of Citizens United. That would very quickly swing the influence of the vote back in favor of the actual citizenry. Then you could further do away with lobbying.

[bcredliner]

A couple reasons why I think term limits and a retirement age are important: I watch quite a few congressional debates. The breaks are insightful, seeing so many old white males that have trouble getting out of their chairs, or limping out of the chamber, or bent over and shuffling along. I suspect some still have flip phones and don't use computers and haven't changed their mind about anything in the last ten years. And since a large number of Americans vote for the name they recognize and don't try to learn anything about the challenger the incumbent has a distinct advantage in elections.

[Maruzo]

Originally Posted by EODguy

Two senators per state is fair as a senator is supposed to be doing what's best for their individual state and is NOT based upon population....

Going your route to disenfranchise people is a sure way to start a civil war.

Those large populations are represented by having a shit ton of congressmen that pretty much guarantees that the House can bring up bills that are only wanted by certain cities, so you can't have it both ways.

I do think that we have too many people who have zero clue about our Constitution and how government works that vote.

You yourself should read the Federalist papers and the Anti-federalist papers....

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

It’s the representations of your constituents. You can’t properly represent your constituents interests if your efforts gets wiped out by other senators who represent 1/10 your population size.

It’s a structural failure. And it’s outdated.

[EODguy]

Senators were until the change in the Constitution supposed to represent their State' interests and the Congressmen were to represent the people of their State. With this change you now have the people of a State voting solely for their interests and not have the State looked after, it also helps nullify the interests of smaller States since the larger populated States control more voting power than what was originally intended.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk