# Is it possible to abolish the House of Representatives?



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

Firstly, the lower house comes from the power of the plebeians, but there are no plebeians in the USA, therefore this is an unnecessary atavism.

Secondly, plebiscites are a security threat, because they contribute to the flourishing of the ochlocracy and the manipulation of public opinion.

In addition, it contributes to state inequality, as densely populated states have an advantage in the plebeian vote.


----------



## rightwinger (May 5, 2022)

No


----------



## Moonglow (May 5, 2022)

Nope.


----------



## Moonglow (May 5, 2022)

What did plebeian mean?






plebeian, also spelled Plebian, Latin Plebs, plural Plebes, *member of the general citizenry in ancient Rome as opposed to the privileged patrician class*.

plebeian | Definition, History, & Examples - Encyclopedia ...​


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> What did plebeian mean?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


more precisely, not "*general*", but *foreigners*


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> No


why not?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2022)

No, it would not be possible.

The US does have some problems.   But you seem determined to focus on the least of these problems.    The House of Representatives is a key part in our system.

Why not try fixing things where you live and not on suggesting violations of our US Constitution.


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> The US does have some problems. But you seem determined to focus on the least of these problems. The House of Representatives is a key part in our system.



why do you think the lower house is key?


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> Why not try fixing things where you live and not on suggesting violations of our US Constitution.


Firstly, the entire world politics depends on the situation in the USA, and secondly, I believe that the plebeian house should be removed from all the parliaments of the world.


----------



## Moonglow (May 5, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> why do you think the lower house is key?


It's in the Constitution that you hate.


----------



## rightwinger (May 5, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> why not?


US Constitution……READ it


----------



## Moonglow (May 5, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> more precisely, not "*general*", but *foreigners*


Sorry, but you don't get to reorganize society based on your bias.


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> violations of our US Constitution


it can be officially revised, just like the repeal of Prohibition


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 5, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Firstly, the lower house comes from the power of the plebeians, but there are no plebeians in the USA, therefore this is an unnecessary atavism.
> 
> Secondly, plebiscites are a security threat, because they contribute to the flourishing of the ochlocracy and the manipulation of public opinion.
> 
> In addition, it contributes to state inequality, as densely populated states have an advantage in the plebeian vote.


The Senate manifests even greater state inequality.


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> US Constitution……READ it


it can be officially revised, just like the repeal of Prohibition


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Senate manifests even greater state inequality.


Nonsense, the Senate is the equal representation of the states. Nothing could be fairer to represent the interests of the states


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Firstly, the entire world politics depends on the situation in the USA, and secondly, I believe that the plebeian house should be removed from all the parliaments of the world.



The plebeians that you choose to dismiss are the very life blood of any nation.   Your desire to have only the elite aristocracy have a say in the running of the nation is nonsense.   In the US, all citizens have a say in thing.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> why do you think the lower house is key?



For the very reason you want it removed, it is the voice of the people.


----------



## rightwinger (May 5, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> it can be officially revised, just like the repeal of Prohibition



Congress can’t agree on a budget
You think they will agree to a complete revision of the core of the Constitution?


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Congress can’t agree on a budget
> You think they will agree to a complete revision of the core of the Constitution?


Of course, the swindlers themselves will not give up power, but this can be achieved popularly and by pressure from state governments.


----------



## Pellinore (May 5, 2022)

It makes me feel good when I don't even need to say anything in inane threads like this.

Y'all keep at it.


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 5, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Firstly, the lower house comes from the power of the plebeians, but there are no plebeians in the USA, therefore this is an unnecessary atavism.
> 
> Secondly, plebiscites are a security threat, because they contribute to the flourishing of the ochlocracy and the manipulation of public opinion.
> 
> In addition, it contributes to state inequality, as densely populated states have an advantage in the plebeian vote.


No, you need checks and balance. With one, the other has too much authority. In the UK, we have the Commons (House of Representatives - USA) and the Lords (The Senate - USA).

Who do the people vote for in the US? The Representatives or the Senators? We vote for local MP's that form the Commons, when they wish to create laws, they have to go through the Lords, otherwise, the Commons will just pass everything without scrutiny. Same in the US, (assuming I get this right), the Representatives want to pass a law but it goes through the Senate for scrutiny.


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> For the very reason you want it removed, it is the voice of the people.


The voice of the people is the Senate. They vote for those leaders who are well known for them, in the interests of their state. And the plebeian house is the voice of the swindlers who manipulate the masses.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> The voice of the people is the Senate. They vote for those leaders who are well known for them, in the interests of their state. And the plebeian house is the voice of the swindlers who manipulate the masses.



No.  The senate is the voice of the people based on the states.    The House is the voice of the people based on the populations.    Eliminating the House of Representative would only put more power in the hands of fewer people.

You are half right in the post above.  The senate does vote for the leaders who are well known to them.  But whether it is in the interests of their state is debatable, at best.


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> No, you need checks and balance. With one, the other has too much authority. In the UK, we have the Commons (House of Representatives - USA) and the Lords (The Senate - USA).
> 
> Who do the people vote for in the US? The Representatives or the Senators? We vote for local MP's that form the Commons, when they wish to create laws, they have to go through the Lords, otherwise, the Commons will just pass everything without scrutiny. Same in the US, (assuming I get this right), the Representatives want to pass a law but it goes through the Senate for scrutiny.


In fact, there are no "checks and balances", there is a war between the right and the left, and for the left-wing scammers, the lower house is a convenient tool for manipulating the masses and putting pressure on the sparsely populated states.

As for England, there have been no right-wingers since the time of Thatcher, there is a totalitarian state that illegally holds Ireland against its will, by methods of terror, and so on.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 5, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> The voice of the people is the Senate. They vote for those leaders who are well known for them, in the interests of their state. And the plebeian house is the voice of the swindlers who manipulate the masses.



"...in the interests of their state."

.....up until the passage of the 17th amendment.


Passed by Congress on May 13, 1912, and ratified on April 8, 1913, the 17th Amendment modified Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution by *allowing voters to cast direct votes for U.S. senators*. Prior to its passage, senators were chosen by state legislatures.Feb 8, 2022
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-...ess on May,were chosen by state legislatures.
17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of ...​https://www.archives.gov/milestone-...ess on May,were chosen by state legislatures.
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-...ess on May,were chosen by state legislatures.
The vote became part of the national ticket.


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> No. The senate is the voice of the people based on the states. The House is the voice of the people based on the populations.


So the states are not the population?


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 5, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> In fact, there are no "checks and balances", there is a war between the right and the left, and for the left-wing scammers, the lower house is a convenient tool for manipulating the masses and putting pressure on the sparsely populated states.
> 
> As for England, there have been no right-wingers since the time of Thatcher, there is a totalitarian state that illegally holds Ireland against its will, by methods of terror, and so on.


You were going so well, then your last paragraph highlighted the fact that you read too much CNN shite.


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

PoliticalChic said:


> "...in the interests of their state."
> 
> .....up until the passage of the 17th amendment.
> 
> ...


Yes, this should also be revisited. This also violates the principles of real direct democracy and opens up opportunities for mass manipulation.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> So the states are not the population?



Don't play semantics.    The senate has two members from each state.  The house has members based on populations of the states.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Yes, this should also be revisited. This also violates the principles of real direct democracy and opens up opportunities for mass manipulation.



The US is not a democracy and never has been.   You might want to start by learning about our system of gov't.


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> The US is not a democracy and never has been.   You might want to start by learning about our system of gov't.


The United States has democracy in the best sense of the word: patriarchal traditions and real federalism, a politically literate population and institutions to control the appetites of the federals.There is no left communist "democracy" there yet, but it is getting closer


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> The United States has democracy in the best sense of the word: patriarchal traditions and real federalism, a politically literate population and institutions to control the appetites of the federals.There is no left communist "democracy" there yet, but it is getting closer
> 
> View attachment 640864



We are a constitutional republic.    In a true democracy freedoms and rights could be voted away.   Groups of people could have their rights voted away.

And our patriarchal traditions are fading.    Women are gaining more and more power.   And that is a very good thing.


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> You might want to start by learning about our system of gov't.


federal government? Why is it "undemocratic" in your sence? Feds in the US differ from totalitarian "democracies" only in that they do not have as much power as in totalitarian countries. They have to reckon with the interests of the states. And the system is the same: a 2-chamber parliament, 3 main branches of government, and so on. How is this different from conventional left-wing governments?


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> We are a constitutional republic.    In a true democracy freedoms and rights could be voted away.   Groups of people could have their rights voted away.
> 
> And our patriarchal traditions are fading.    Women are gaining more and more power.   And that is a very good thing.


Can't your constitution be changed by plebiscite?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 5, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Can't your constitution be changed by plebiscite?


There are 3 ways to change the constitution. an amendment created by congress and passed by 3/4 of the states. a convention to change the whole thing created again by Congress OR by the States.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Can't your constitution be changed by plebiscite?



Not by a simple majority, no.


----------



## Pellinore (May 5, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> No, you need checks and balance. With one, the other has too much authority. In the UK, we have the Commons (House of Representatives - USA) and the Lords (The Senate - USA).
> 
> Who do the people vote for in the US? The Representatives or the Senators? We vote for local MP's that form the Commons, when they wish to create laws, they have to go through the Lords, otherwise, the Commons will just pass everything without scrutiny. Same in the US, (assuming I get this right), the Representatives want to pass a law but it goes through the Senate for scrutiny.


We vote for both.  There are 435 Representatives, who have to run every two years.  I am in District 4 of the 11 that my State has (according to its population), so I will vote for that seat this November.

There's a little more history behind the Senate seats.  Every State has its own government, mostly organized like smaller versions of the US government; originally, these State legislatures elected the Senators.  Fear of corruption inspired us to change it in 1913, though, so now we each vote for our own Senators as well.  They serve six-year terms, so 33 or 34 of the 100 Senators get re-elected every two years.  My State will vote for one of my Senators this November, the other one in November of 2024, then 2026 is our year "off."

And, of course, because we have a Presidential system rather than a Parliamentary one, we have to vote for that office every four years, conveniently timed to coincide with both the leap years and the Summer Olympics.  We don't vote for Supreme Court Justices; they are appointed.


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> Not by a simple majority, no.


It's just amazing. This gives hope that America will rise from its knees and save itself from the leftist plague.

I recently watched a plebiscite on constitutional amendments in one *well-known* country. Approximately 99.9% did not read it, and almost 100% still do not understand what they voted for.
It was not so easy to even find the text of these amendments, but they "voted" from commercials on TV.

It's not a joke, it's just the way it is.


----------



## Pellinore (May 5, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> The US is not a democracy and never has been.   You might want to start by learning about our system of gov't.


We are not a direct democracy.  A republic is a form of indirect democracy, and we are definitely that.


----------



## Pellinore (May 5, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There are 3 ways to change the constitution. an amendment created by congress and passed by 3/4 of the states. a convention to change the whole thing created again by Congress OR by the States.


Specifically ...

- Congress can call for an Amendment with a 2/3 vote in both houses, or 
- 2/3 of the States can get together and call for a convention, where any number of Amendments can be brought up.

Either way, any proposed Amendment is passed when ...
- 3/4 of the State Legislatures ratify it, or ...
- Conventions in 3/4 of the States ratify it.

If Congress proposes an Amendment, it also gets to choose which method of ratification to use.
Only one Amendment has ever been ratified by conventions, the 21st (ending Prohibition).


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> Specifically ...
> 
> - Congress can call for an Amendment with a 2/3 vote in both houses, or
> - 2/3 of the States can get together and call for a convention, where any number of Amendments can be brought up.
> ...


This is a strange amendment in all respects. Firstly, this is outright left-wing impudence, and secondly, this is the only amendment that cancels the previous amendment. Legitimacy of the 21st Amendment questionable


----------



## para bellum (May 5, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Can't your constitution be changed by plebiscite?


We do not have national plebiscites.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 5, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> So the states are not the population?




Sadly, the Senate is now tied to the federal government rather than their state.

States have simply become agencies, satellites, of the federal government.


----------



## BackAgain (May 5, 2022)

The OP question is stupid and premised on an error.

The short answer is: yes. Of course it’s “possible.”  The Constitution itself contemplates such a thing. It’s called an “amendment.” 

The reason for the bicameral nature of our congress has nothing at all to do with plebeian vs patrician. The House is closer to the People themselves. Directly elected. The Senators WERE to be CHOSEN by state legislators. The concept was one of dividing power. In this case between the more democratically elected representatives (for the People) and the less democratically appointed senators (for the States). State vs State. People of one state vs People of other States. Federalism fine tuned.

Then we fucked it up (via a misguided but successfully passed) Amendment. We should repeal the 17th Amendment.


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 5, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> We are not a direct democracy.  A republic is a form of indirect democracy, and we are definitely that.


Yup, America is a Republic with a splash of Representative Democracy.


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 5, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> We vote for both.  There are 435 Representatives, who have to run every two years.  I am in District 4 of the 11 that my State has (according to its population), so I will vote for that seat this November.
> 
> There's a little more history behind the Senate seats.  Every State has its own government, mostly organized like smaller versions of the US government; originally, these State legislatures elected the Senators.  Fear of corruption inspired us to change it in 1913, though, so now we each vote for our own Senators as well.  They serve six-year terms, so 33 or 34 of the 100 Senators get re-elected every two years.  My State will vote for one of my Senators this November, the other one in November of 2024, then 2026 is our year "off."
> 
> And, of course, because we have a Presidential system rather than a Parliamentary one, we have to vote for that office every four years, conveniently timed to coincide with both the leap years and the Summer Olympics.  We don't vote for Supreme Court Justices; they are appointed.


That's the bone of contention in the UK, the Lords are not elected by the public, so technically, not democratic. The Lords last forever, the MP's last a maximum of 5 years before a general election needs to be called.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 5, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Nonsense, the Senate is the equal representation of the states. Nothing could be fairer to represent the interests of the states


California has the same number of votes in the Senate as Wyoming, that's neither equality nor democracy.


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> California has the same number of votes in the Senate as Wyoming, that's neither equality nor democracy.



That is, China in international organizations should have 100 times more votes than the United States?


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Yup, America is a Republic with a splash of Representative Democracy.


Democracy is the rule of the people. it is in both cases a democracy, but I would prefer here the terms "aristocratic" and "plebeian" (or "primitive") democracy. The real democratic vertical of the King-Roman Senate of the Patricians against the plebeian flat model. The Republic includes both sides.


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

Aristocratic democracy comes from the natural tribal model of the Aryan tribes. It is a fractal. The father of the family is subordinate to the head of the clan, the head of the clan to the head of the tribe, the head of the tribe is a representative in the Senate - the Union of tribes. People always know their Fathers and do not succumb to the manipulations of swindlers.


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

And since the Americans are  the  people aristocratic by spirit, who honor the Aryan ideals of Heroism and Liberty (with the exception of the British colonists), it is the Senate model that suits them - an assembly of state leaders. Nothing else is required.


----------



## Pellinore (May 5, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> That's the bone of contention in the UK, the Lords are not elected by the public, so technically, not democratic. The Lords last forever, the MP's last a maximum of 5 years before a general election needs to be called.


I can understand that.  Maybe it's the American anti-royalism ingrained in me, but I'd have a problem with inherited positions (with actual political power) in The Year of Our Lord 2022.


----------



## Pellinore (May 5, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> California has the same number of votes in the Senate as Wyoming, that's neither equality nor democracy.


Sure it is.  California and Wyoming have exactly the same number of State Constitutions, and that's what gives them their Senators, not population.  That's the bones of the Great Compromise that set up our Congress.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> It's just amazing. This gives hope that America will rise from its knees and save itself from the leftist plague.
> 
> I recently watched a plebiscite on constitutional amendments in one *well-known* country. Approximately 99.9% did not read it, and almost 100% still do not understand what they voted for.
> It was not so easy to even find the text of these amendments, but they "voted" from commercials on TV.
> ...



And you think that doesn't happen in our Senate?    Senators have even said that they will read it after it passes.


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> And you think that doesn't happen in our Senate?    Senators have even said that they will read it after it passes.



Not on that scale.

It's also *funny*, by the way, that in the United States each constitutional amendment is a huge event, a plebiscite votes without looking, for a whole package that radically changes the constitutional system without taking popcorn out of the mouth

If it were possible, Roosevelt would have done it


----------



## rightwinger (May 5, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Of course, the swindlers themselves will not give up power, but this can be achieved popularly and by pressure from state governments.


State Governments are more corrupt than Federal Govt


----------



## rightwinger (May 5, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> And you think that doesn't happen in our Senate?    Senators have even said that they will read it after it passes.


They never said that


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> State Governments are more corrupt than Federal Govt



Corruption always increases with the centralization of power, because corrupt officials are the mainstay of the federals in the field. The feds turn a blind eye to corruption in exchange for loyalty. In addition, the independence of different branches is lost, so the prosecutor's check of an official will not work, due to corruption ties of different branches in one place.


----------



## rightwinger (May 5, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Corruption always increases with the centralization of power, because corrupt officials are the mainstay of the federals in the field. The feds turn a blind eye to corruption in exchange for loyalty. In addition, the independence of different branches is lost, so the prosecutor's check of an official will not work, due to corruption ties of different branches in one place.



Corruption increases with the decrease of observation 

States have lower levels of observation than the Feds


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

The feds can effectively control the local authorities, as long as they themselves are not dependent on them.


----------



## rupol2000 (May 5, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Corruption increases with the decrease of observation
> 
> States have lower levels of observation than the Feds


I said about it. To control them they must have independence


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> They never said that



Ok, it was "We'll have to pass it to find out whats in it".


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 5, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> California has the same number of votes in the Senate as Wyoming, that's neither equality nor democracy.


Again RETARD we are NOT a democracy.


----------



## rightwinger (May 5, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> Ok, it was "We'll have to pass it to find out whats in it".



What was said was they needed to pass a final bill through the House before it was determined what was in the final agreed on bill


----------



## Ralph Norton (May 5, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> California has the same number of votes in the Senate as Wyoming, that's neither equality nor democracy.


Thus the existence of the House.
Please forgive me for adding this but:  duh


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 5, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Democracy is the rule of the people. it is in both cases a democracy, but I would prefer here the terms "aristocratic" and "plebeian" (or "primitive") democracy. The real democratic vertical of the King-Roman Senate of the Patricians against the plebeian flat model. The Republic includes both sides.


Democracy is where you can go onto the Commons/Senate floor to partake in politics and decide laws, but because millions of people can't fit into one room, then you have the right to vote for someone to speak on your behalf. That person represents you, and that's representative democracy. So it's having the right to vote and be represented, that's democracy.

Now, whether that representive decides on their own what's best for the people, or voting with the will of the people, is a bone of contention because I believe they should do so to the latter.


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 5, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> I can understand that.  Maybe it's the American anti-royalism ingrained in me, but I'd have a problem with inherited positions (with actual political power) in The Year of Our Lord 2022.


The UK monarchy is just purely constitutional and thus just undertakes various official, ceremonial, diplomatic and representational duties and no more.


----------



## Pellinore (May 5, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> The UK monarchy is just purely constitutional and thus just undertakes various official, ceremonial, diplomatic and representational duties and no more.


Yeah, Head of State stuff.  I get it.  The House of Lords is made of up of people who inherited their titles, though, isn't it?  That seems a bit antiquated to me.


----------



## Batcat (May 5, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> What did plebeian mean?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In other words the classes that get pissed on.


----------



## Pellinore (May 5, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Again RETARD we are NOT a democracy.


This is the second time I've seen you insist that.  What makes you think the US isn't a democracy?

I have a feeling you're saying "democracy" when what you mean is a "DIRECT democracy."


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 5, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> Yeah, Head of State stuff.  I get it.  The House of Lords is made of up of people who inherited their titles, though, isn't it?  That seems a bit antiquated to me.


The out going Prime Minister tends to appoint a Lord. Usually the speaker of the house gets nominated but despite the Labour opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, nominating John Bercow, the Tory government snubbed him, so he won't get a peerage.

The Commons and Lords have been around for centuries, I think since 1332. The problem with UK history, it goes back thousands of years, Americans only tend to think of 1776 onwards. England was formally recognised in 927, and even then, history of kings and queens precede that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 5, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> This is the second time I've seen you insist that.  What makes you think the US isn't a democracy?
> 
> I have a feeling you're saying "democracy" when what you mean is a "DIRECT democracy."


We are a REPUBLIC that elects representatives to rule for us. And the way we do that is by Population in the House and by states in the Senate. Claiming because we have 2 senators per state we are not a republic or a democratic republic is in fact RETARDED,


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 5, 2022)

It would be an absurd republic if the House of Representatives was decommissioned.


----------



## para bellum (May 5, 2022)

The Constitution is a Compact between the States.

The Framers had State Legislatures pick Senators because the Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the State. The House represents the interests of the people.

The 17th undermined a fundamental protection built into the Constitution. That is to prevent the whims of the population (as represented by the house) from passing laws adverse to the State, such as taking State land without the State's consent.

The 17th turned the Senate into a popularity contest, just like the House. Senators only have to satisfy voters, not State Legislatures (who they are supposed to be representing).

Now Democrats call the Senate "undemocratic", because Wyoming has an equal voice in the Senate as California.

Which was the exact intent of the Framers (and also why there is an equal standing clause in the Constitution).

Democrats want to  abolish the Constitutional _function_ of the Senate- allocating Senators by the census and electing them by popular vote would just make it an expansion of the House of Representatives.

This is not a "democratic" change- it is a fascist change that enables discrimination against the minority.


----------



## para bellum (May 5, 2022)

The terms of the two offices reflect their purpose. A Representative serves for two years, because the Framers recognized that public opinion can change quickly. The "People's House" should reflect public opinion, so it requires shorter terms.

State's interests in Federal policy are not so volatile, and Senators should serve longer terms to act as a buffer against drastic changes initiated in the House. Since they were not elected by popular vote, they had a layer of insulation from angry voters.

There was corruption when State Legislatures were picking Senators, that's true. But there's still corruption in Senate elections today, so the 17th didn't really fix anything...


----------



## ESay (May 6, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> Yeah, Head of State stuff.  I get it.  The House of Lords is made of up of people who inherited their titles, though, isn't it?  That seems a bit antiquated to me.


That was the very intent from the beginning. The Commons represent the people, the Lords represent the Crown. The checks and balances, sort of.


----------



## Pellinore (May 6, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> We are a REPUBLIC that elects representatives to rule for us. And the way we do that is by Population in the House and by states in the Senate. Claiming because we have 2 senators per state we are not a republic or a democratic republic is in fact RETARDED,


Settle down, Francis.  I'm not claiming that.  I'm trying to inform you that we are, in fact, both a democracy and a republic. 

A democracy (literally, "rule of the people") means that the people have the power to make change, as opposed to an autocracy ("rule of one"), a theocracy ("rule of the church"), etc.   There are different types of democracy: direct (when everyone votes for every bill) and indirect (where we elect representatives to vote for us). 

A republic (literally, a "public thing") is a type of government where voters select representatives to exercise their power in the government.  If that sounds familiar, it is because it is in essence the same thing as an indirect democracy.  The opposite would be a monarchy, where one king or queen runs the whole show.  

We're both.


----------



## Pellinore (May 6, 2022)

para bellum said:


> The Constitution is a Compact between the States.
> 
> The Framers had State Legislatures pick Senators because the Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the State. The House represents the interests of the people.
> 
> ...


I haven't seen anyone—D or R—call for a change in how we allocate or elect Senators; it's the Electoral College that gets the heat.  

The solution to that I like the best is to simply do away with winner-take-all and require every State to use the Congressional District Method, like Maine and Nebraska.  EV's are allocated by district, and the remaining two go to the overall State winner.  More people (such as California Republicans, who might as well stay home) would have their votes count, and it would all but do away with the election being determined by a half dozen or so swing states as the rest get ignored.  Easy peasy.


----------



## Pellinore (May 6, 2022)

para bellum said:


> The terms of the two offices reflect their purpose. A Representative serves for two years, because the Framers recognized that public opinion can change quickly. The "People's House" should reflect public opinion, so it requires shorter terms.
> 
> State's interests in Federal policy are not so volatile, and Senators should serve longer terms to act as a buffer against drastic changes initiated in the House. Since they were not elected by popular vote, they had a layer of insulation from angry voters.
> 
> There was corruption when State Legislatures were picking Senators, that's true. But there's still corruption in Senate elections today, so the 17th didn't really fix anything...


Yeah, I haven't analyzed it fully but from what I do know, I'm not convinced that it prevented any corruption.  But hey, it was the Progressive Era, and until enough political will bubbles up against it, that's what we've got.


----------



## para bellum (May 6, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> I haven't seen anyone—D or R—call for a change in how we allocate or elect Senators; it's the Electoral College that gets the heat.


See posts 14 and 48 this thread. That is a very conventional view with dems.

The EC also, you are correct. The reason is the same- every State gets 2 electors in addition to the electors based  on the census (reflected by # of congressional districts). According to Democrats, smaller states are "over represented" in the EC as a result. (the same argument they make about the Senate)


Pellinore said:


> The solution to that I like the best is to simply do away with winner-take-all and require every State to use the Congressional District Method, like Maine and Nebraska.  EV's are allocated by district, and the remaining two go to the overall State winner.  More people (such as California Republicans, who might as well stay home) would have their votes count, and it would all but do away with the election being determined by a half dozen or so swing states as the rest get ignored.  Easy peasy.


I have thought about this a lot, and I am not sure about it.

In principle, I think allocating electors that way is workable.

There is one effect that seems pretty likely, and that is the House of Representatives would be more likely to be controlled by the same party as the White House in presidential election years.

Not _certain_, but likely. The makeup of the house reflects the will of the 435 congressional districts, so a majority of districts should be more reflective of the popular vote nationwide.

That might be a good thing, it might be a bad thing- I honestly can't say.

And obviously it would have to be nationwide, because it would make every congressional district just as important as any other. Democrats in California aren't going to willingly give up the winner-take-all system, because the northern and eastern parts of the State would go red, and California's importance in Presidential elections is diminished.

E.G. How many republican representatives are there from California? Give that many electoral votes to Trump...

I agree, it would get rid of the current system where the White House is decided by 6 States.

It would require a Constitutional amendment to direct States to allocate in that fashion, since right now it's up to the State Legislatures.

It's a change that sort of tilts away from the Constitutional intent of _States_ electing the President and Vice President.

I don't think dems would go for it, because they still view the 2 senators per State (and the 2 EV's associated with them) as "undemocratic".


----------



## Esdraelon (May 7, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> it can be officially revised, just like the repeal of Prohibition


Yes, it can.  It would require an amendment to the Constitution.  In the state of our politics today, reaching the level of consent for that would be IMPOSSIBLE.


----------



## Esdraelon (May 7, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Of course, the swindlers themselves will not give up power, but this can be achieved popularly and by pressure from state governments.


An article V convention of the states would probably be even an more difficult path to a Constitutional amendment.


----------



## Peace (May 7, 2022)

No.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 8, 2022)

para bellum said:


> See posts 14 and 48 this thread. That is a very conventional view with dems.
> 
> The EC also, you are correct. The reason is the same- every State gets 2 electors in addition to the electors based  on the census (reflected by # of congressional districts). According to Democrats, smaller states are "over represented" in the EC as a result. (the same argument they make about the Senate)
> 
> ...



Break down highly populated states in to several states, so that all states had about the same population.
Then any complaint goes away.


----------

