That makes little sense as an argument; how does giving disproportionate power to small states do anything but put a squeeze on diversity and move us closer to a “one size fits all” situation? It creates a semi-oligarchy where small populations can push around large ones because of where they live.
Would it be a good thing if, say, white people or left handed people got two votes instead of one? Should the vote of me and my fellow Californians count twice because we are Just That Awesome?
[hijack]
Why does any state need a two-house legislature, anyway? Everybody but Nebraska has got two houses, but why?
[/hj]
No, Chancellor Palpatine. Congress in general is a disgrace right now, but I think it’s a smart idea to have separate houses with slightly different compositions and different interests, not to mention different electoral cycles.
And eally: stop and think about what the government would look like if it was just the presidency and the House of Representatives. How much would be getting done?
You beat me to the joke, dammit!:mad:
The hate is swelling in you now.
Divide the Empire up into a Tetrarchy? I’m not seeing the parallel.
PPACA would have passed with a public option?
Then the T.E.A. Party would have swept in and completely defunded it?
And SOPA would be law right now, but really, it’s a Senatorial hold stopping that, not the Constitution itself.
Yeah, I say take the risk, even though it’s my ox getting gored. Better to change course a little too fast than much too slowly.
The authors of the Constitution had the exact opposite view, which is why the Senate exists. And you forgot to mention that Obama would have been impeached and removed from office earlier this year.
If it does, then it would be better for the standard to be something less arbitrary, undemocratic and unfair. Such as, say, a second house that represents political organizations according to how many members they have*; they’d still be dominated by the Republicans & Democrats, but you’d have voices from outside the two party system. So you’d have one house representing the States (House of Representatives), and another representing the national political community but not tied to any particular locale.
*With some minimum size for qualification, otherwise you’d have to seat thousands of people.
I don’t think the idea behind the Senate is arbitrary or unfair. To the extent it’s undemocratic, it’s undemocratic in a good way: it adds an element of deliberation to the political process and removes some of the populist element.
As a registered independent, I’m not a fan of this idea.
I don’t see how replacing “populism” with privilege due to geography is an improvement.
Geography is an element in organizing every society. And the House actually has at least one important geographic issue that the Senate doesn’t: you can’t gerrymander Senate districts.
I’m a person from a state with a small population. Convince me I should give up what representation I have on the national level in the Senate. I like having a counterbalance in place to population monsters like New York, California and Texas.
Better to change course a little too slowly than much too quickly.
The Senate was designed to insulate legislation from the passions of the moment. Doesn’t always work, but it does mostly.
I’m open to argument about how the Senate should be constituted, how it should be drawn from the nation, but if you ask me what the single biggest problem with the Senate is, it is that their term is too short. A Senator should serve one ten or twelve year term, with another election allowed after he or she has sat out for a term.
Bingo. The House of Representatives represents the people, and the Senate represents the states. Thus, in the House, the people of East Podunk, New York should have about as much voice as those of Nowheresville, Nebraska. Similarly, in the Senate, Wyoming has as much voice as California.
The US is a federation: the people have a voice in their government, but so do the bodies that make up the federation–the states. The people are heard in the House, and the states are heard in the Senate.
More, I suppose; no need for Senate-House conference committees on legislation. Also makes a presidential veto easier to override. Think about it, a one-house legislature is stronger as against the executive than a two-house legislature. Now, think, from which branch of government do most abuses of civil liberties, military adventurism, etc., seem to come lately and for a long time past?
How much voice should a unified .24% have on the national stage?
They are basically permanently pre-gerrymandered. A small state automatically has more power because the rules are rigged to make it that way.
Convince me your vote is more important than many others.
For reference, a resident of Wyoming has 66 times more representation in the Senate than a resident of California.
Hows that fair?