Do Away With The U.S. Senate?

[BrainGlutton]

@Cisco

I think he’s right, and not just because I like his Carl Barks reference.

I’m right, or Steve MB is right? And what does Carl Barks have to do with it?

[Cisco]

@BrainGlutton

I’m right, or Steve MB is right? And what does Carl Barks have to do with it?

I don’t see any reason why the sheep/wolf metaphor has to apply solely to financial situations. Remember when all the right-wing jingos were diving - face-first and frothy-mouthed - at anyone who dared to suggest that our Fearless Leader was anything short of divine? Even the Hollywood “lefties” booed Michael Moore at the 2003 Oscars. I see that as just as much of a sheep/wolf situation. More, really, since social issues are a lot more important to me than money is.

Carl Barks wrote a story where Uncle Scrooge and Flintheart Glomgold nearly drove themselves crazy trying to prove who was the richer duck, and it ended with them being so evenly matched in wealth that they had to measure their ball-of-string collections to decide the final winner. Scrooge won, IIRC.

[BrainGlutton]

@Cisco

Carl Barks wrote a story where Uncle Scrooge and Flintheart Glomgold nearly drove themselves crazy trying to prove who was the richer duck, and it ended with them being so evenly matched in wealth that they had to measure their ball-of-string collections to decide the final winner. Scrooge won, IIRC.

Actually Glomgold won, but there was some dispute over the measuring and the contest judges were family friends of Scrooge and . . .

[zamboniracer]

@scotandrsn

How about the voters paying attention and not re-electing Senators who participate in this sort of crap, if it’s that important an issue?

I mean, why is that an any more difficult process than trying to bring about the similar sea change that would be required to amend the Constitution or get the Senate to vote these kinds of restrictions on themselves?

Well that’s true, but sometimes its understandably hard for voters to get worked up about it. Let’s take a pure hypothetical on a minor issue. Let’s say the House of Representatives passes a statute called the make the Pro Football Teams Pay for Their Own Damn Stadiums Without Taking any Money from the Local Taxpayers Act. The pro football league opposes the legislation, and can and will make contributions to the senators from states that don’t have teams, and thus who’s senators won’t face any wrath from their citizens for opposing the Act, namely, Wyoming, Montana, N.Dakota, S. Dakota, Mississippi, Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Arkansas, N.Mexico, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Virginia, South Carolina, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Alaska and Hawaii. That’s 50 no votes right there, and the Act doesn’t stand a chance.

If all politics is local, if the national issue doesn’t affect the locals, they won’t mind if their senator votes against a law that is in the national interest.

[foolsguinea]

Consequentialist argument:

If the United States had a unicameral legislature, people would be going to prison for hiring undocumented immigrants today.

Ergo, I accept the existence of the Senate, even though I think it’s just as full of charlatans as the lower house.

[2sense]

@foolsguinea

Consequentialist argument:

If the United States had a unicameral legislature, people would be going to prison for hiring undocumented immigrants today.

Ergo, I accept the existence of the Senate, even though I think it’s just as full of charlatans as the lower house.

But consequences stem from circumstances. People act and react according to the situation. Change the system and you might change the behavior. It has already been argued that the House would be more responsible if there were no Senate to check their foolishness ( not that I am maintaining that locking up people who hire illegal immigrants would be irresponsible ). The same can be said about the general populace. If their input in the political process were less limited they would have more incentive to pay attention. You teach a child responsibility by giving them responsibility.

Just my 2sense