primitives discuss canceling midterms and dissolving the senate

[BattleHymn]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251383026

Mon Nov 3, 2014, 10:39 AM
FBaggins (13,596 posts)

Cancel the Midterms

By Tuesday night about 90 million Americans will have cast ballots in an election that’s almost certain to create greater partisan divisions, increase gridlock and render governance of our complex nation even more difficult. Ninety million sounds like a lot, but that means that less than 40 percent of the electorate will bother to vote, even though candidates, advocacy groups and shadowy “super PACs” will have spent more than $1 billion to air more than two million ads to influence the election.

There was a time when midterm elections made sense — at our nation’s founding, the Constitution represented a new form of republican government, and it was important for at least one body of Congress to be closely accountable to the people. But especially at a time when Americans’ confidence in the ability of their government to address pressing concerns is at a record low, two-year House terms no longer make any sense. We should get rid of federal midterm elections entirely.

...snip...

But the two-year cycle isn’t just unnecessary; it’s harmful to American politics. The main impact of the midterm election in the modern era has been to weaken the president, the only government official (other than the powerless vice president) elected by the entire nation. Since the end of World War II, the president’s party has on average lost 25 seats in the House and about 4 in the Senate as a result of the midterms. This is a bipartisan phenomenon — Democratic presidents have lost an average of 31 House seats and between 4 to 5 Senate seats in midterms; Republican presidents have lost 20 and 3 seats, respectively.

The realities of the modern election cycle are that we spend almost two years selecting a president with a well-developed agenda, but then, less than two years after the inauguration, the midterm election cripples that same president’s ability to advance that agenda.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/opinion/cancel-the-midterms.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Mon Nov 3, 2014, 10:58 AM
Star Member TreasonousBastard (24,129 posts)
1. Makes a lot of sense, but...

there's that Amendment thing.

Damn it all!  You and your damn rule of law!

Mon Nov 3, 2014, 11:22 AM
FBaggins (13,596 posts)
4. Yep...

... and the fact that whining about something that might make things better for us today... is often not in our best interest tomorrow.

I'm sure that we'll love midterms the next time there's a republican president along with a red congress

Mon Nov 3, 2014, 11:03 AM
world wide wally (1,142 posts)
2. Better yet... Outlaw gerrymandering

And have a "consistent" ratio of representatives to citizens. Not a system where one state gets one rep for every 200,000 people and another state only gets one rep for every 500,000.

Oh yeah, I can't see what that would lead to.  Not at all.   

Mon Nov 3, 2014, 11:21 AM
FBaggins (13,596 posts)
3. There's already a consistent ratio (about 725k / rep)

The only cases where it's inconsistent is when a state's population is below that point (rare), or not quite high enough to receive two representatives (a handful).

As far as outlawing gerrymandering... that's a tough one. Few of the alternatives have been shown to give us better results.

Most "unbiased" standards could end up worse then the current system.

Mon Nov 3, 2014, 01:11 PM
YarnAddict (1,325 posts)
5. If this had been done in 2006

Rs would have had control of the Congress for both of bush's two terms. Baaaaaddddd idea. There are times when mid-terms are needed to send a message to the party in charge, and times when a Prez needs be be reined in.

Mon Nov 3, 2014, 01:30 PM
Star Member hedgehog (34,077 posts)
6. Eliminate the Senate instead.

Last time I checked, the 10 smallest states together had the same population as California, but California only has 2 Senators to their 20. In addition to the incredible disparity in population size, we have a situation in which it is very easy to buy an election in the lowest population states. Mining and oil interests in the West end up having an inordinate influence on the entire United States.

Mon Nov 3, 2014, 01:56 PM
GGJohn (613 posts)
7. And replace it with what?

Just because they're smaller and less populated that CA, NY, doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the same representation, otherwise, the larger states would dominate.

Mon Nov 3, 2014, 02:19 PM
Star Member hedgehog (34,077 posts)
8. "the big states will dominate"

that's rhetoric left over from the First Constitutional Convention, and I think a case can be made that it was a cover for "we want to make sure that more populous states can't end slavery in less populous states". I think in this day of international corporations, it's a meaningless phrase.

I think the real divide these days isn't among the states but between rural and urban populations. Here in Republican Upstate New York, I'm always hearing that New York City is the tail that wags the dog. In point of fact, we face much the same standstill as the Federal government - a Republican controlled upper house and a Democratic controlled lower house. The difference here is that the leaders get together and make deals about how the state should be run. Occasionally, the Governor is consulted.

My in-laws live in a rural area of Erie County. I've spent over 30 years hearing all about how Buffalo dominates the county and spends all the tax money. Given that most of the tax dollars are generated on Buffalo and the suburbs, and that that's where the most people are, isn't that the way it should be?

Ultimately it all comes down to a question - are we one person, one vote or not?

Mon Nov 3, 2014, 02:30 PM
GGJohn (613 posts)
9. All I can tell you is that the more populous states would dominate the govt.

leaving the smaller states having to adhere to policies that may not fit their lifestyle.

That old addage of What works in CA, NY, may not work in WY, MT.

Freeper MOLE!!!

Mon Nov 3, 2014, 03:15 PM
Star Member hedgehog (34,077 posts)
10. I think that already happens, in the sense that the rules for the use of

Federally owned land is dictated by a Federal government dominated by urban dwellers. It already happens in the sense that every state has to abide by the ACA. Again, laws regarding highway speed limits and drinking ages are more or less set by populous states by regulating requirements for Federal dollars.

As I said, I think the one lifestyle policy that the small states wanted to reserve to themselves was legalized slavery. That;s a moot point now. I'd like an example of a policy dictated out of New York that would not fly in Montana that is not a matter of Democrat vs Republican.

On the other hand, initiatives favored by most people in the country that pass the House easily are often blocked by Senators from small states. It's why Obama couldn't get much done during his first term despite having a nominal majority in both houses.

Small states such as Delaware and South Dakota wanted to attract big banks by allowing high interest rates on credit cards, and those loose limits have been imposed on the rest of us.

Eliminate the Senate, and we'll see coalitions of representatives of rural and urban areas more than of individual states.

Mon Nov 3, 2014, 03:55 PM
Star Member Liberal_Stalwart71 (16,836 posts)
11. Translation: Americans expected Obama to correct 10-15 years of bad economic policies

by Bush I-Clinton I and II-Bush II in less than two years. We got angry and impatient that he couldn't do that fast enough, so we elected incompetent assholes in 2010. Then got angrier in 2012 that Obama couldn't implement his agenda because the incompetent assholes that got elected in 2010 were incompetent assholes. HUH?? So now we're even angrier in 2014, and what will we do? Elect even MORE incompetent assholes.

Does that make any ****ing sense at all, people? No! It doesn't! None at all!

Mon Nov 3, 2014, 04:11 PM
Filibuster Harry (636 posts)
14. good idea and respectable responses

I would not cancel the midterms but I do think that term limits are needed and I think the american people need to get a petition with signatures so it 1) goes to the White House and/or 2) can enough signatures get in on a ballot in every state?

The founding fathers did not intend our representatives to be career politicians. The president is only allowed 2 terms (8 years) so why should senators or congressmen be allowed to have more?? Maybe if term limits were implemented then maybe our representatives would / could work with one another for the better of this country, spend more time at work (instead of this ridiculous 92 days in 2014) (really? And at our expense) and not have to focus on elections as often because their term would be up.

Just a thought: for beginners: 12 year terms which include 2 terms as Senator; 6 terms as house ; or combination of 1 term as Senator and 3 as house.

[miskie]

What good, obedient, little fascists they are. Cancel midterms..   

And anyone with a quarter of a functioning brain knows why.

The Democrats saw in 2008 the effect a charismatic puppet has on the election, and several states have also seen the effect a "popular' ballot item has as well.

The Dems know that if they could put someone that the LIVs would find compelling on every ballot, then many of the downticket races would go their way on "coattails".

-Which is why they dislike the midterms.

Each state is (more or less) on its own without national direction, and the libs can't stick legal pot and gay weddings on every ballot every time. So, they need a 'pied piper' at the top to lead the morons. Bubba Clinton played that role well. Obama turned it into an art.   

[franksolich]

Dear primitives:

Let's talk about this after tomorrow night.

Thanks.

franksolich

[ChuckJ]

Mon Nov 3, 2014, 01:30 PM
Star Member hedgehog (34,077 posts)
6. Eliminate the Senate instead.

Last time I checked, the 10 smallest states together had the same population as California, but California only has 2 Senators to their 20. In addition to the incredible disparity in population size, we have a situation in which it is very easy to buy an election in the lowest population states. Mining and oil interests in the West end up having an inordinate influence on the entire United States.

I wonder if this member of the smartest on the internet knows the difference between the Senate and the House and the reason for the difference.

[BattleHymn]

Instead of dissolving the Senate, let's dissolve the 17th Amendment. 

[Dori]

Instead of dissolving the Senate, let's dissolve the 17th Amendment. 

Yes. 

[JohnnyReb]

There was a time when senators were not elected by the people but by the people elected to state offices.

[Mr Mannn]

Translation of the OP:
Democracy and free elections are getting in the way of our enlightened agenda. We must cancel democracy and free elections.

Now bow before your new masters, and repeat after me, "Slavery is freedom."

[Big Dog]

The primitives have confused Star Wars with real life.

"The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away forever."

[freedumb2003b]

Yes.

HELL YES!

[freedumb2003b]

There was a time when senators were not elected by the people but by the people elected to state offices.

The 17th Amendment was the worst thing America ever did to itself.

[Carl]

Funny how they scream about mythical voter suppression they would disenfranchise 75% of the country in the blink of an eye to serve their own purposes.

[miskie]

Funny how they scream about mythical voter suppression they would disenfranchise 75% of the country in the blink of an eye to serve their own purposes.

(Psssst... You aren't supposed to notice the hypocrisy... )

[Zathras]

I'm confused. Weren't the DUmbasses the ones saying Bush was going to cancel the elections when he was President? And now they want to do the same thing?


Ghaa, DUmbasses make my head hurt with their stupidity.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Dissolving a legislative body did not work out all that well for either Louis XVI or Charles I.  Not sure you DUmmtards realize what you're in for on the Lotto-sized longshot that you actually got one of your stupid little wishes like this.

 

[Ptarmigan]

What are they thinking?????????

[DefiantSix]

What are they thinking?????????

Drop the first word of that interrogative...

What are they thinking?????????

And then re-ask the the "more to the point" question that remains...

What Are they thinking????????

 

BTW: the answer to your question is: "Not only NO, but HELL NO".)

[txradioguy]

Funny how they scream about mythical voter suppression they would disenfranchise 75% of the country in the blink of an eye to serve their own purposes.

I also notice how this topic only comes up when they are about to lose big at the polls.

[HawkHogan]

Everytime I read a thread like this, I thank our Founders. 

[franksolich]

Everytime I read a thread like this, I thank our Founders.

Yeah, especially for making the Constitution so hard to change.

Look at Vermont, for an example.  Vermont's of course an extremist wingnut state, full of moonbats who'd like to abolish the freedom to bear arms.

But for whatever reason, the right to bear arms is in the state constitution, and so it's too hard to change it.  The gun-grabbing Democrats, liberals, and primitives just have to live with it.

It's just a really odd situation, but I enjoy it.

[JohnnyReb]

Yeah, especially for making the Constitution so hard to change.

Look at Vermont, for an example.  Vermont's of course an extremist wingnut state, full of moonbats who'd like to abolish the freedom to bear arms.

But for whatever reason, the right to bear arms is in the state constitution, and so it's too hard to change it.  The gun-grabbing Democrats, liberals, and primitives just have to live with it.

It's just a really odd situation, but I enjoy it.

Vermont was moonbat central 50 years ago. I started college in the summer of '63. My chemistry professor and calculus professors were married and from Vermont. They were both a little weird but one was die hard democrat and the other a die hard republican. They hadn't killed each other by the time I left in '65.

[txradioguy]

The primitives have confused Star Wars with real life.

"The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away forever."

I like this one too...

The Emperor: [to the Senate] In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for ten thousand years.




[Senate fills with enormous applause]


Padmé: [to Bail Organa]
 So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.

[Big Dog]

I like this one too...

The Emperor: [to the Senate] In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for ten thousand years.




[Senate fills with enormous applause]


Padmé: [to Bail Organa]
 So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.

I forgot about that one.

Agree 100%.

[Zathras]

Mon Nov 3, 2014, 04:11 PM
Filibuster Harry (636 posts)
14. good idea and respectable responses

I would not cancel the midterms but I do think that term limits are needed and I think the american people need to get a petition with signatures so it 1) goes to the White House and/or 2) can enough signatures get in on a ballot in every state?

The founding fathers did not intend our representatives to be career politicians. The president is only allowed 2 terms (8 years) so why should senators or congressmen be allowed to have more?? Maybe if term limits were implemented then maybe our representatives would / could work with one another for the better of this country, spend more time at work (instead of this ridiculous 92 days in 2014) (really? And at our expense) and not have to focus on elections as often because their term would be up.

Just a thought: for beginners: 12 year terms which include 2 terms as Senator; 6 terms as house ; or combination of 1 term as Senator and 3 as house.

Hell must be freezing over. I actually agree with the DUmbass....except for his first sentence that is.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Hell must be freezing over. I actually agree with the DUmbass....except for his first sentence that is.

Me too, he even hits pretty close to the formula I'd pick if there was enough magic in the world to ever get the necessary amendment past its 535 mortal enemies in Congress.