Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, May 15, 2012.
I thought this would make a good discussion.
Wasn't that the intention by having 2 houses? Maybe I am missing something here
That is the intention...
Read: Republican states.
Its the United States of America, not the United States of CaliYorkxas. Each state should have equal representation in the Senate because otherwise we have 2-3 states making the decisions that will affect the entire country and potentially disadvantage the other states.
Times change. I'm not happy that 21 states, representing only 11% of the population, can muster 41 votes for a filibuster.
aka welfare states.
do you wish for only a HoR?
Oh no. That would be crazy.
I posted this for discussion. I don't have a solution. As I said, I do have a problem with a very small percentage of our population, who contribute less to the country in taxes holding so much power in the Senate.
The Senate question is the main reason keeping the District of Columbia from becoming a state. Would mean two more senators (90% chance of them being Democrats) and only 1 representative (but Democratic also).
I don't hear any bitching at dinner time.
Most of the "welfare" states are likely getting pumped up on federal subsidies so that you can eat cheap corn and wheat in everything.
Most of the welfare states are red, many fewer are farm states.
Regardless, we subsidize the wrong foods. Why the **** do hamburgers cost $0.99 and salads $7.99?
I agree this is an issue. I personally believe initially this was not thought to be an issue (and wasn't an issue) as not as much power was to be placed on the Federal Government and that most everyday decisions would be made by respective state governments. Obviously, in this day and age, that doesn't work as well as it did in the early 1800s. But I don't have any solution either.
The two House system was obviously supposed to address this but I doubt the Founding Fathers could foresee such a drastic population divide between the States.
Because there is more money in producing corn, soy, etc., for industrial uses than for food. Sure, we subsidize corn but most of that corn is turned into animal feed, ethanol, food additives, etc.,.
The House and the Senate are in the grip of 'meeting inertia', although on a much larger scale.
I heard of a novel solution today, for shortening all meetings.
Raise the meeting table by 1 foot, and remove all the chairs.
Things will speed up, without question.
And, for the Senate, the added advantage is that the old dregs might just fall down dead, and be swept-up with the other trash.
Yes it was, but originally people didn't vote for senators; states chose them. That helped moderate the extremes because you had to be a "team player" to be chosen for the Senate.
I'm not exactly sure how you would solve this problem, especially since it's almost impossible to actually get rid of the Senate (unless all 50 states agree). The problem of warped representation ebbs and flows with time; at one point in the 1800s, New York had over 20% of the population but only 2/48 Senate seats.
Maybe one way to solve the problem is to increase the number of senators per state to 6 and have the first and second winners in each election become senators, so that the extreme views get hushed out and the large size would make the Senate adopt rules more similar to the House. I'm not a fan of this, but it would at least do something to help the madness.
How about giving the Senators from the states that have more population than representation in the Senate the authority to block funding to states with populations less than their representation if they filibuster actions by the majority.
(edit) On second thought, I really don't like that idea either.
OK, how about their votes are weighted to the number of registered voters in each State.
Of course the little guys will scream, but why should their vote count for more.
Who do they think they are, corporations!!!
You couldn't do that without an amendment that is approved by every state, unfortunately, so it would just as hard as getting rid of the Senate altogether.
No, there is only more money in producing them because of subsidies, without all subsidies on food, or atleast equal subsidies on all kinds of food the price difference wouldn't be an issue.