Large Scale Central

What a strange map

General Discussion
#21

Ric I think we already have term limits, in that we can vote them out.

Long term senators, like Ted Stevens or Byrd in WV or Ted Kenedy, are good at doing what the Senate structure forces them to do–deliver pork and short circuit local initiatives for change. Massachusetts ia s big complicated state, with a lot of different and competing interests. No person can represent them all except in a very general way. Representatives, Congressmen, can represent the interests of a district, which are much smaller and much more focused. Senators instead represent all of Massachusetts or all of texas, which is really an abstraction. Since they can’t really work on local politics, they tend to focus on staying in power by delivering the pork, or by grandstanding in committees. Term limits wouldn’t change this tendency, I don’t think, because it’s written into the structure of the Senate.

As I understand it the origins of the Senate really lie in the slave state/free state controversy, and slave states not wanting to get outvoted by the more populous free states. In those days South Carolina could more reasonably be imagined as a state with a single interest–slavery–which was different from the interests of New York. But now South Carolina wants pretty much the same thing NY state does–economic growth, job creation, etc. The Senate is the legacy of a very different political order.

#22

I think the Senate needs to be occupied by a group of individuals that really want to be there and would give everything for that chance. My proposal is they go in the chambers, the doors are locked and there is no exposure to lobbiest are other outside distractions like young female pages and now I guess even male pages for some and any other outside distractions. No contact what so ever. They talk, they debate, they argue, but the doors remained locked. We don’t know what goes on in there and we don’t care. After about 6 months, we unlock the doors, clean up the mess and asked for next 100 volunteers. It may take awhile, but even after 3 or 4 times a tried and true politician will catch on to what is going on and maybe they will take their job of representing the voters seriously and do the work of the people.

#23
mike omalley said:
Steve Conkle said:
[br]“Take note here, my choice of the term “intelligent” as opposed to “educated” this was both intentional and emphatic. They recognized the fact that any form of a purely “direct democracy” or "indirect democracy" is as worthless and dangerous as any form of tyranny yet devised.
[br] Actually, I'm afraid, most of them were highly educated. Sad, and shocking I know, but true. Madison, for example. He was--I shudder to say it--an intellectual. Hamilton too. And Jefferson--read widely in philosophy and political theory. Jefferson and Franklin founded universities! Places where people would--gulp--get "educated!" Jefferson cursed us with the Library of Congress, with its millions of useless books with their so-called "knowledge." John Adams went to Harvard!

Probably the Constitution was actually written by the plumber who was fixing the pipes at the time.

I’m trying to figure out what you are advocating for here. You seem to be arguing that both “direct democracy” and “indirect democracy” equal tyranny. Really? What are you proposing as an alternative to “indirect democracy?” Can you explain what you mean by that?


[br]Mr. O’Malley

Ditch the condescending attitude; I’m not one of your captive audience college students. Maybe you’ll convince them to buy into to the garbage you’re promoting, however in my case I can guarantee you it’s a lost cause. Further, based on the format of your reply you’re not deserving of an answer, enough said.

#24
mike said:
As it stands now, the 635,867 people in North Dakota have the same senatorial power as the 23.5 million people in Texas.
And that is the way it is supposed to be. The founders are smarter than you are, mike, deal with it.
mike said:
There isn't really a "virginia" interest.
I suspect that the Governor of Virginia will disagree with you.
mike said:
how about we make DC a state
Now, you are just being silly. In the same vein, how about we make Eastern Washington a separate state? We have nothing in common with the Peoples' Republic of Seattle. We can do the same with Eastern Oregon and North Central California, and for the same reason. While we are at it, we'll spin off Eastern Pennsylvania and hook it up with D.C., and then spin off Pittsburg and give it to, hmmmm, who would want it? Yup, there is a whole lot of gerrymandering that we could do, most of which you wouldn't like. Are you sure that you want to open that can?
#25

Mike,
Your entitled to your opinion. It sure doesn’t offend me.

The Senate committee “chairs” are appointed by seniority. Seniority determines whether Senators get seats on powerful committees , or the committees nobody wants.
States are reluctant to elect new Senators, knowing full well a freshman Senator is starting over at the bottom of the pecking order.
Term limits would end this problem.
But it would also create another problem.
What do you replace the “seniority” system with? Run elections within the Senate for committee chairmanships and seats?
These committee chairmen wield an enormous amount of power. I can imagine the deals that would be made for the chairmanship or even a seat on a powerful committee.
Ralph

#26
Jon Radder said:
Mike, I'm going to join the ranks of those that disagree with you on this one. You know all this, but I'm going to say it anyway...

The Senate was designed so that each individual state would have equal power within the Senate. This is balanced by the House where the power is divided by population. It takes both houses and the president to pass a law, and the court to uphold it. This is the basic balance of power that the founders dreamed up. It’s worked pretty good for over 200 years the way I see it.


Curious, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a law must be upheld by the court (by that, Jon, I am guessing that you mean the Supremes). The only reason that the Supremes have that power is that for some reason, we have collectively decided to give that power to them. It is not given to them in the Constitution.

#27
Ric Golding said:
I think the Senate needs to be occupied by a group of individuals that really want to be there and would give everything for that chance. My proposal is they go in the chambers, the doors are locked and there is no exposure to lobbiest are other outside distractions like young female pages and now I guess even male pages for some and any other outside distractions. No contact what so ever. They talk, they debate, they argue, but the doors remained locked. We don't know what goes on in there and we don't care. After about 6 months, we unlock the doors, clean up the mess and asked for next 100 volunteers. It may take awhile, but even after 3 or 4 times a tried and true politician will catch on to what is going on and maybe they will take their job of representing the voters seriously and do the work of the people.
Ric,

Do we get a puff of white smoke when they have reached a decision? :lol: :stuck_out_tongue: :smiley:

#28

Gee, this is almost as much fun as the pre-November Follies! :lol:

#29

Steve, why do you think I’m in some kind of “smartness” contest with the founders?

The founders never imagined direct election of senators–now we have it. They never imagined women voting–now we have it. “Smartness” has nothing to do with it. Times change. Are you arguing we should, say, repeal the 13th amendment, and restore slavery because the super smart founders never imagined it?

You don’t have to have Eastern WA form its own State–it already has congressional representation. If there was no Senate, Eastern Washington would be represented by its congressman, and much more accurately than it is represented by its Senator. You would not have to complain of living in a blue state. We don’t have to form new states, we already have congressional districts based on population. It’s the Senate that’s the problem, because it forces people into political groupings that don’t reflect the reality of their opinions and interests.

#30
Steve Conkle said:
Ditch the condescending attitude; I’m not one of your captive audience college students. Maybe you’ll convince them to buy into to the garbage you’re promoting, however in my case I can guarantee you it’s a lost cause. Further, based on the format of your reply you’re not deserving of an answer, enough said.
Mr. Conkle:

You’re the one who started with a condescending attitude–you made sure to dismiss the idea of education. That was an effort to insult me, as you made clear. Fine! But you were or are ignorant of exactly how educated the people who wrote the Constitution actually were. And your argument about democracy equaling tyranny makes no sense at all. But I guess it’s a foolish expectation on the part of the educated, that arguments make sense.

I’d be tempted to say, in reference to your non-reply, that “ignorance is bliss,” except that you seem so cranky and unhappy! Lighten up!

#31
mike said:
Are you arguing we should, say, repeal the 13th amendment, and restore slavery because the super smart founders never imagined it?
Au contraire, Mr. Mike. The Founders did imagine it. That is what the big fight was all about. Remember the 3/5 rule? Remember removing mention of slavery from the Declaration (yes, I know, not the Constitution, but a lot of the same players)? The Founders did imagine it, and counted on it, they just couldn't get it done at the time.

If states like Washington, Oregon, California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and others where the majority of the counties are red were to be split along those lines, and the electoral college kept, it is doubtful that we would see another Democrat president. And, I would be much better represented by a Governor, legislature, and congressional delegation that agreed with me than I am now by the current set-up.

#32

Just to stir up trouble:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8

#33
Steve Featherkile said:
Jon Radder said:
Mike, I'm going to join the ranks of those that disagree with you on this one. You know all this, but I'm going to say it anyway...

The Senate was designed so that each individual state would have equal power within the Senate. This is balanced by the House where the power is divided by population. It takes both houses and the president to pass a law, and the court to uphold it. This is the basic balance of power that the founders dreamed up. It’s worked pretty good for over 200 years the way I see it.


Curious, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a law must be upheld by the court (by that, Jon, I am guessing that you mean the Supremes). The only reason that the Supremes have that power is that for some reason, we have collectively decided to give that power to them. It is not given to them in the Constitution.

I never claimed to be a constitutional expert. That’s the way it works, so I assumed that it was planned that way. Perhaps it was, even if not spelled out in the constitution. And yes, I did mean the Supreme court.

#34
Tom Ruby said:
Just to stir up trouble:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8


That’s hilarious.
And that is exactly what it is, entertainment.
Talk to enough people about anything and you will find some who are clueless.
Ralph