Primitives want to abolish the Senate

[Carl]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026037099

Sat Jan 3, 2015, 04:53 PM

Ichingcarpenter (32,204 posts)

The Senate's 46 Democrats got 20 million more votes than its 54 Republicans
On Tuesday, 33 US senators elected in November will be sworn in by Vice President Joe Biden — including 12 who are new to the chamber. The class includes 22 Republicans and 11 Democrats, a big reason why the GOP has a 54-46 majority in the Senate overall.

But here's a crazy fact: those 46 Democrats got more votes than the 54 Republicans across the 2010, 2012, and 2014 elections. According to Nathan Nicholson, a researcher at the voting reform advocacy group FairVote, "the 46 Democratic caucus members in the 114th Congress received a total of 67.8 million votes in winning their seats, while the 54 Republican caucus members received 47.1 million votes."
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/3/7482635/senate-small-states/in/5654656

I love how democracy works.

We lost but should still be in control. 

Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 3, 2015, 05:33 PM

WhaTHellsgoingonhere (3,059 posts)
16. Wyoming gets 2 seats and California gets 2 seats

I hate the Senate

Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 3, 2015, 05:42 PM

WhaTHellsgoingonhere (3,059 posts)
21. not in name but in fact

Arbitrary lines that produce lopsided outcomes by design.

Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Reply #21)

Sat Jan 3, 2015, 05:44 PM

SickOfTheOnePct (2,382 posts)
22. Oh, OK

So I guess we should eliminate all state boundaries.

Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #22)

Sat Jan 3, 2015, 05:45 PM

WhaTHellsgoingonhere (3,059 posts)
23. I'd whack the Senate

Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #22)

Mon Jan 5, 2015, 11:04 PM

Star Member Ken Burch (34,867 posts)
141. No...just make the Senate half the size of the House

And eliminate the artificial 435 seat-limit on the size of the House itself(a limit imposed in 1920, when the population of this country was, IIRC, a third of what it is now.

With the 435-seat limit, the House ceased to truly offer "representation by population", and has led to a massive under-representation of large states, like Illinois and New York, whose population hasn't grown as fast as that of some small states.

There is no longer any reason to make the Senate a chamber in which small states get disproportionate influence, because there are no longer clear differences in the interests of small states compared to large states.

Psst,New York has been losing population for decades thanks to leftist policies.

Response to onenote (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 3, 2015, 05:30 PM

Ichingcarpenter (32,204 posts)
13. Me? I would get rid of the Senate

and use a parliamentary system with no gerrymandering.

But that an't gonna happen.

20 million is a lot to think about.

Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 3, 2015, 06:43 PM

Star Member mountain grammy (5,743 posts)
40. Me too. Maybe we'll have that someday

after this mess we have now completely breaks down.

Response to onenote (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 3, 2015, 05:32 PM

Vattel (5,351 posts)
15. I think Wyoming, Idaho and Montana should be one state, and North and South Dakota should be one,

and Kansas and Oklahoma should be one. That would help make things fairer.

Response to onenote (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 3, 2015, 05:32 PM

Vattel (5,351 posts)
15. I think Wyoming, Idaho and Montana should be one state, and North and South Dakota should be one,

and Kansas and Oklahoma should be one. That would help make things fairer.

Gosh,no replies. 

Response to onenote (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 3, 2015, 05:39 PM

First Speaker (386 posts)
20. Give all 50 states one senator, and apportion the rest according to the population at large...

...basically, repeal the Great Compromise thru which the Constitution was passed in the first place. It's long overdue. Two senators per state is an anachronism. I know it won't happen--making our Constitution reasonable will never happen--but that's what I'd do, if I could.

Response to MohRokTah (Reply #34)

Sun Jan 4, 2015, 01:29 PM

kelly1mm (3,008 posts)
88. You cannot amend the Constitution to reduce or change the state's representation in the Senate,

without that State's consent.

Article Five "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate".

Response to MohRokTah (Reply #89)

Sun Jan 4, 2015, 01:36 PM

kelly1mm (3,008 posts)
90. No, you really can't. Article 5 is the 'Amendment' Article of the Constitution. It sets

out how amendments can be made. It also specifically bars certain amendments (the Senate one in question) forever and others for a period of time (importation of slaves into the US). Here it is in it's entirety, with the important clause highlighted:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sat Jan 3, 2015, 06:43 PM

billhicks76 (2,095 posts)
41. Jeb Bush...Please Pay Attention

Last edited Sun Jan 4, 2015, 06:14 PM - Edit history (1)
The reason Obama was "allowed" to be re-elected was to ensure completely developed hatred from the right and a completed 8 years to fully afflict the Right with BUSH AMNESIA!!!! 4 years people would've still not forgotten Bush crimes. Now they do and are ready for Jeb. This is a major miscalculation on our part not addressing this problem early and succinctly enough. All we should be talking about is Jeb...and that families minion Hillary too.

 

Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sat Jan 3, 2015, 06:45 PM

jmowreader (29,061 posts)
42. It may be time to add some senators

When the Founding Fathers ratified the Constitution, the entire nation's population was 3.5 million free inhabitants.

In 2013, the state of California had 38.33 million free inhabitants. One state.

The problem with relying on the wisdom and foresight of men who lived over 200 years ago is they weren't able to foresee the nation as it exists today.

I think you could solve a LOT of problems fairly simply.

First, make Congress nonpartisan. They can run as Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, Pot Party or whatever, but once they actually GET to Congress they must work together, and the party caucuses will be dissolved.

Then add senators as follows: every state gets two. One will be considered the "state's senator." This is the one from that state who's been there longest. The other will be the senator for the state's first ten congressional districts. If a state has more than ten, it'll have one for districts 11 through 20, one for districts 21 through 30 and so on until they run out of districts. The district senator only has to get votes from the districts he or she represents, the state senator runs in the whole state.

And finally, change Congressional terms to four years coinciding with the president's term, and senatorial terms to eight also coinciding with presidential election years.

Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sat Jan 3, 2015, 06:53 PM

kentuck (72,895 posts)
44. This is truly a danger to our democracy.

The laws need to be changed. Voting precincts should be as close to 50% as possible. If, for some reason, the precincts got out of whack, say 60% to 40%, then the boundaries should be redrawn. And that should be the only time that gerrymandering should be approved - in order to better balance the voters in the precincts.

Naturally, no law is perfect, but this would be a lot better than what we have right now, or are rapidly headed that way?

Just my opinion.

Constitutional scholar right there.

Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sat Jan 3, 2015, 07:05 PM

certainot (2,798 posts)
46. those are talk radio states and the only reason the GOP is still in the running

is because democracy-loving americans ignorantly give republican radio a free speech free ride.

biggest mistake in political history considering the time lost on global warming

Scratch a liberal,find a fascist.

Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sat Jan 3, 2015, 07:58 PM

Star Member sulphurdunn (5,108 posts)
51. I'm all for getting rid of the senate,

as soon as we get rid of gerrymandering in the house. Face it, both houses of congress and the Supreme Court are rigged for the benefit of the wealthy and with the exception of short periods before and after WWII always have been

Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Jan 4, 2015, 11:37 AM

Star Member Arugula Latte (45,663 posts)
72. Hey, don't you people know that empty acreage is more important than actual people?

Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Jan 4, 2015, 12:08 PM

Star Member Indydem (1,970 posts)
74. "The Senate is a profoundly anti-democratic body and should be abolished."

I don't know whether to get angry at the sheer ignorance of this statement, and others in this thread, or to just sit down and cry.

The Senate is not SUPPOSED to be democratic! Hell, under its original design Senators weren't even directly elected! The Senate is the "republic" part of our "democratic-republic" that was established for a damn good reason by the framers.

Abolished!? How in the **** would one even go about doing that? Restructuring the entire governing apparatus of our nation? Because that would be where you'd have to start.

Jesus H Christ, we haven't even technically lost control of the senate yet, and our solution to losing control of it is to flush the entire Constitution because there are too many who don't understand that America is not, nor has never been, a democracy?

Sanity of any kind is not welcome at the DUmp.

Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Jan 4, 2015, 01:28 PM

WRH2 (87 posts)
87. fix this in this cycle

Voting districts should be aligned along zip code boundaries.

 

[franksolich]

.....there are no longer clear differences in the interests of small states compared to large states.

Ha.  Bullshit.

[franksolich]

.....with no gerrymandering.

franksolich's question that never gets answered.

How come gerrymandering was never an issue among the primitives until after the mid-term elections of 2010?  It'd gone on since 1810 or something, in blue states, without igniting a murmur.

What's different now?  Why is this an issue, when it wasn't for 200 years before?

[Carl]

Ha.  Bullshit.

It is scary how for just the hope of the promise of a pittance they are willing to give up every last freedom they have.

[JohnnyReb]

What have I learned from this.....that there are 20 million more crazy people in blue states than in red states.

[txradioguy]

franksolich's question that never gets answered.

How come gerrymandering was never an issue among the primitives until after the mid-term elections of 2010?  It'd gone on since 1810 or something, in blue states, without igniting a murmur.

What's different now?  Why is this an issue, when it wasn't for 200 years before?

It's never an issue until the Dems are out of power and/or their own tactics are used against them.

Things like Gerrymandering, Nuclear Option, IMpeachment, Government shutdowns are ALWAYS good and useful pieces to the Democratic process when Dems control the levers of power.

However...

When they aren't the ones controlling the levers it suddenly tuens bad and evil.

See also: "Dissent is Patriotic"

[BlueStateSaint]

It's never an issue until the Dems are out of power and/or their own tactics are used against them.

Things like Gerrymandering, Nuclear Option, IMpeachment, Government shutdowns are ALWAYS good and useful pieces to the Democratic process when Dems control the levers of power.

However...

When they aren't the ones controlling the levers it suddenly tuens bad and evil.

See also: "Dissent is Patriotic"

Target, Dragoon!

[98ZJUSMC]

Arbitrary lines

No different than any other line, dickhead.  Quite frankly, they are less arbitrary than city and township lines, which have been enlarged over time. 

that produce lopsided outcomes by design.

Breaking Newsflash.   It was progressives that wanted the Senate chosen by popular vote instead of State appointment.  A loooong time ago.  Why, the US was almost 300 years old then........   

Reformers introduced constitutional amendments in 1828, 1829, and 1855, with the issues finally reaching a head during the 1890s and 1900s. Progressives, such as William Jennings Bryan, called for reform to the way senators were chosen.

Tough.  Shit.

The Senate is not SUPPOSED to be democratic! Hell, under its original design Senators weren't even directly elected!

Please don't end them into shock.  Wait.....go ahead.

[98ZJUSMC]

What have I learned from this.....that there are 20 million more crazy people in blue states than in red states.

Herds of stupid sheep, bleating away because the shepherds aren't producing fReEsHiT!!11, fast enough.

[98ZJUSMC]

First, make Congress nonpartisan. They can run as Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, Pot Party or whatever, but once they actually GET to Congress they must work together, and the party caucuses will be dissolved.

 

 

[DLR Pyro]

WhaTHellsgoingonhere (3,059 posts)
16. Wyoming gets 2 seats and California gets 2 seats

I hate the Senate

you didn't seem to mind when the democrat party had the majority.  Why are you all pissy now?

SickOfTheOnePct (2,382 posts)
22. Oh, OK

So I guess we should eliminate all state boundaries.

Why not?  You DUmmies seem perfectly with doing away with our National boundaries in respects to illegal aliens.

WhaTHellsgoingonhere (3,059 posts)
23. I'd whack the Senate

[GOBUCKS]

Sun Jan 4, 2015, 01:28 PM

WRH2 (87 posts)
87. fix this in this cycle

Voting districts should be aligned along zip code boundaries.

What a great idea.

I wonder if the DUmmies consider that a lot of the gerrymandering they bitch about was required by leftist federal courts to guarantee there would be districts with black congressmen.

[98ZJUSMC]

Wow...nice raging bonfire of stoopid.  Here's a (D)Ullard that should make a strong showing for DOTY 2015:  Fred Sanders.  What a (D)ope.

First Speaker (386 posts)
20. Give all 50 states one senator, and apportion the rest according to the population at large...

...basically, repeal the Great Compromise thru which the Constitution was passed in the first place. It's long overdue. Two senators per state is an anachronism. I know it won't happen--making our Constitution reasonable will never happen--but that's what I'd do, if I could.

Response to First Speaker (Reply #20)Sat Jan 3, 2015, 06:12 PM
Fred Sanders (7,113 posts)
29. ^^^^^^representation according to population^^^^^^^

Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #29)Sun Jan 4, 2015, 02:15 PM
Star Member Indydem (1,970 posts)
101. We have that.

It's called the House of Representatives.

Response to Indydem (Reply #101)Sun Jan 4, 2015, 02:42 PM
Fred Sanders (7,113 posts)
107. No, we do not, that is representation according to gerrymandering.

Keep trying, indydem.  You'll be a blithering, straightjacketed zombie inside of a week!

[98ZJUSMC]

What a great idea.

I wonder if the DUmmies consider that a lot of the gerrymandering they bitch about was required by leftist federal courts to guarantee there would be districts with black congressmen.

On the last election night, after the results were in, MSLSD was calling for repeal of the very voting rights bill that they wanted and started that whole ball rolling.. 

Worse than infants.....

[98ZJUSMC]

WhaTHellsgoingonhere (3,059 posts)
16. Wyoming gets 2 seats and California gets 2 seats

I hate the Senate

Vattel (5,351 posts)
15. I think Wyoming, Idaho and Montana should be one state, and North and South Dakota should be one,

and Kansas and Oklahoma should be one. That would help make things fairer

 

Impossible to discuss anything with someone wearing a shining coat of stupid like that.

[Chris_]

Gleaming jewels of colossal ignorance...

[98ZJUSMC]

Don't you just know that, in the end, every (D)ullard thread boils down to just two things:

billhicks76 (2,095 posts)
118. C'MON...Bush Sr Has Been Running Things Since 1975
SSDD.  Keep repeating this shit................

Carter fired him as CIA Director but all he did was regroup...even Reagan was afraid of him as John Hinkley's family were close friends of his father a big republican donor who they lived in the same gated community with in Texas. Watch the Youtube ABC news reports the day of the attempted assassination...they clearly state that Neil Bush was meeting with Hinkleys father the previous night. Coincidence perhaps but ANYONE who isn't afraid of what the Bushes are capable of after everything thats occurred in the last few decades must be living in a bubble. They can win again but they will ale sure they have their hand chosen Clinton backup if someone throws a wrench into the mix like Perot did to frustrate Bush Sr in '92.

and

certainot (2,798 posts)
46. those are talk radio states and the only reason the GOP is still in the running is because democracy-loving americans ignorantly give republican radio a free speech free ride. biggest mistake in political history considering the time lost on global warming   Freedom of Speech is awful, isn't it?

Response to certainot (Reply #46)Sun Jan 4, 2015, 01:52 PM
Star Member appalachiablue (727 posts)
95. Not only Americans, Dems. have given Hate Media free reign for 20+ years. And it shows.

I love the relevance to the OP.   

[wasp69]

Some 'tard quotes Vox (one of the most inaccurate, liberal, hacktastic sites on the internet), and the DUmbasses drool all over the pants.   

Sat Jan 3, 2015, 04:53 PM

Ichingcarpenter (32,204 posts)

The Senate's 46 Democrats got 20 million more votes than its 54 Republicans
On Tuesday, 33 US senators elected in November will be sworn in by Vice President Joe Biden — including 12 who are new to the chamber. The class includes 22 Republicans and 11 Democrats, a big reason why the GOP has a 54-46 majority in the Senate overall.

But here's a crazy fact: those 46 Democrats got more votes than the 54 Republicans across the 2010, 2012, and 2014 elections. According to Nathan Nicholson, a researcher at the voting reform advocacy group FairVote, "the 46 Democratic caucus members in the 114th Congress received a total of 67.8 million votes in winning their seats, while the 54 Republican caucus members received 47.1 million votes."
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/3/7482635/senate-small-states/in/5654656

I love how democracy works.

Yeah, DUmbass, about that:

The Myth of Democrats' 20-Million-Vote Majority
By Sean Trende - January 5, 2015

This past weekend, Vox’s featured piece contained the click-bait-y headline “The Senate's 46 Democrats got 20 million more votes than its 54 Republicans.”

This is flawed, badly, for four reasons. (We’ll ignore the concluding sentence, if for no other reason than that Article 5 of the Constitution prohibits relitigating the Connecticut Compromise, even by amendment.)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/05/the_myth_of_democrats_20-million-vote_majority_125145.html

Suck it, cretins...

[98ZJUSMC]

The Myth of Democrats' 20-Million-Vote Majority
By Sean Trende - January 5, 2015

This past weekend, Vox’s featured piece contained the click-bait-y headline “The Senate's 46 Democrats got 20 million more votes than its 54 Republicans.”

This is flawed, badly, for four reasons. (We’ll ignore the concluding sentence, if for no other reason than that Article 5 of the Constitution prohibits relitigating the Connecticut Compromise, even by amendment.)

Heh, .....Vox.  Retarded infants.

Now, tell me (D)Ullards, who gets their marching orders from the media?  The VRWC media?  The Corporate-owned hate media?   

IIRC, this is like the third time, since November, the (D)Ump has stirred-up this nonsense.  I think the (D)elusionistas (letmypeoplevote, in particular) even started it before November, when the polls started seriously sucking in October.

[Texacon]

I thought the EPA was their friend and savior?!

Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Jan 4, 2015, 11:37 AM

Star Member Arugula Latte (45,663 posts)

72. Hey, don't you people know that empty acreage is more important than actual people?

Haven't they ever heard of snail darters (or whatever the hell those things are called)?  Or mice that must be protected at the expense of hard working land owners?  Or fish that have to survive over getting water to the human populations?  Or national parks?

What the hell is wrong with these people?

KC

[ChuckJ]

I'm sort of curious how elections would turn out without gerrymandering. I'm not so sure that the DUmmies would like it much.

[Mr Mannn]

Not one of them has any idea why the congress and senate are set up the way they are.
The Founding Fathers spelled it out for us. But the people who claim to be far more intelligent than we have no freakin clue.

  and these people vote...

[Chris_]

Not one of them has any idea why the congress and senate are set up the way they are.
The Founding Fathers spelled it out for us. But the people who claim to be far more intelligent than we have no freakin clue.

  and these people vote...

They think they can make it up as they go along. 

[ChuckJ]

Not one of them has any idea why the congress and senate are set up the way they are.
The Founding Fathers spelled it out for us. But the people who claim to be far more intelligent than we have no freakin clue.

  and these people vote...

It has always amazed me at how wise the founders of our country were in what they did. they also did all they could to make things fool-proof. Then liberals created more foolish fools.

I don't know if, even in all of their wisdom, the Founding Fathers could foresee the amount of stupid that is possible within liberals.

[GOBUCKS]

I'm sort of curious how elections would turn out without gerrymandering. I'm not so sure that the DUmmies would like it much.

How would it be possible to draw district lines without one side or the other calling it gerrymandering?

Supreme Court decisions requiring "one man/one vote", and requiring establishment of some districts sure to elect black candidates make it very difficult to draw district lines much different.

The loser always calls it gerrymandering.