Senate's 46 Dems Got 20 Million More Votes Than Its 54 Republicans

[peach174]

The American system of government is fcked up.

Then get out. Move to canada.

The states are not democratically configured. Two senators from Alaska with as much power as two senators from NY, or CA, or TX. It's silly.

That's because we are a Constitutional Republic not a democracy.
Senators represent their States, the House represents their people from each State.

We are a democracy because the power to change the Constitution still rests in the hands of the People, which is what a democracy is.

The assumption that a state with a small population should have its People be given disproportionate power in the federal government makes no sense,

but the nature of the colonies in the 18th century made the task of uniting them one that required some ultimately nonsensical contrivances.

House...
Senate...

Understand the difference.

Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. If that was your intent, well done.

It does when you consider your statement, "The assumption that a state with a small population should have its People be given disproportionate power in the federal government makes no sense".

It absolutely makes sense when you remember that it was purposely designed precisely that way. The House was designed to be the "people's house", and went by population. The Senate was designed to give each state exactly the same representational power. Together, they craft legislation, and the popular will of the people was never supposed to be the absolute authority. But you knew that, right?

No he doesn't know that.
He doesn't understand how our Government runs at all.

 

[g5000]

The republican nature of the Senate was greatly undermined by the 17th amendment which changed the Senate to one elected by popular vote instead of by state legislators.

This is probably one of the chief factors in the ability of the federal government to expand its size and scope beyond even Alexander Hamiliton's wettest of wet dreams.

 

[Ernie S.]

The goal of the Republican party is to have an election, not get one single Republican vote, yet the Republican candidate is declared the winner and takes office. Of course, people will wonder, but all done according to law. Gotta hand it to Republicans, always thinking of how to win when most people vote for Democrats.

I always figured you were a bit slow, but didn't have you pegged as the complete idiot you show yourself to be here.

 

[peach174]

The republican nature of the Senate was greatly undermined by the 17th amendment which changed the Senate to one elected by popular vote instead of by state legislators.

This is probably one of the chief factors in the ability of the federal government to expand its size and scope beyond even Alexander Hamiliton's wettest of wet dreams.

That and the 16th amendment.
The two most harmful amendments to change our Republic under President Wilson.

 

[g5000]

All a democracy is two foxes in a hen house voting for what to eat for dinner

Except when you have more than two parties like in Europe....

Some people on this thread have to look two inches outside America for solutions

I've lived in some of those countries, and they do not in any way function better than the US. Multiple parties are not a "solution".

 

[g5000]

So what have we learned from this topic?

We have learned that Democrats are very popular where people live nut-to-butt.

We have learned some people do not understand how their government works.

It's been fun.

 

[peach174]

All a democracy is two foxes in a hen house voting for what to eat for dinner

Except when you have more than two parties like in Europe....

Some people on this thread have to look two inches outside America for solutions

Europe has a real growth problem because they make it very hard for Entrepreneurs, just like the Democrat party is doing here in the U.S.A.
European entrepreneurs Les mis rables The Economist
It has nothing to do with more than two parties.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The American system of government is fcked up.

Then get out. Move to canada.

The states are not democratically configured. Two senators from Alaska with as much power as two senators from NY, or CA, or TX. It's silly.

That's because we are a Constitutional Republic not a democracy.
Senators represent their States, the House represents their people from each State.

We are a democracy because the power to change the Constitution still rests in the hands of the People, which is what a democracy is.

The assumption that a state with a small population should have its People be given disproportionate power in the federal government makes no sense,

but the nature of the colonies in the 18th century made the task of uniting them one that required some ultimately nonsensical contrivances.

House...
Senate...

Understand the difference.

Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. If that was your intent, well done.

It does when you consider your statement, "The assumption that a state with a small population should have its People be given disproportionate power in the federal government makes no sense".

It absolutely makes sense when you remember that it was purposely designed precisely that way. The House was designed to be the "people's house", and went by population. The Senate was designed to give each state exactly the same representational power. Together, they craft legislation, and the popular will of the people was never supposed to be the absolute authority. But you knew that, right?

It was only designed that way because it was the only way to get the states together. That doesn't make it right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then get out. Move to canada.

That's because we are a Constitutional Republic not a democracy.
Senators represent their States, the House represents their people from each State.

We are a democracy because the power to change the Constitution still rests in the hands of the People, which is what a democracy is.

The assumption that a state with a small population should have its People be given disproportionate power in the federal government makes no sense,

but the nature of the colonies in the 18th century made the task of uniting them one that required some ultimately nonsensical contrivances.

House...
Senate...

Understand the difference.

Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. If that was your intent, well done.

It does when you consider your statement, "The assumption that a state with a small population should have its People be given disproportionate power in the federal government makes no sense".

It absolutely makes sense when you remember that it was purposely designed precisely that way. The House was designed to be the "people's house", and went by population. The Senate was designed to give each state exactly the same representational power. Together, they craft legislation, and the popular will of the people was never supposed to be the absolute authority. But you knew that, right?

No he doesn't know that.
He doesn't understand how our Government runs at all.

I know exactly how our government runs but unlike you I'm not living in the 18th century.

I guess you'd have no problem if California broke up into 4 states and possibly ended up with 8 Democratic senators instead of 2. lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

The American system of government is fcked up.

Then get out. Move to canada.

Yes. It's bad. Any system that is contrived to thwart the will of the people is bad.

Do you need a civics lesson too? Whomever wins the majority of votes, wins the Senate seat. You can't get more democratic than that.

The states are not democratically configured. Two senators from Alaska with as much power as two senators from NY, or CA, or TX. It's silly.

That's because we are a Constitutional Republic not a democracy.
Senators represent their States, the House represents their people from each State.

We are a democracy because the power to change the Constitution still rests in the hands of the People, which is what a democracy is.

The assumption that a state with a small population should have its People be given disproportionate power in the federal government makes no sense,

but the nature of the colonies in the 18th century made the task of uniting them one that required some ultimately nonsensical contrivances.

You might want to read Article 5 again, only State legislatures can propose or approve changes to the Constitution.

And they are not popularly elected legislatures?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Direct democracy is when a referendum against same sex marriage passes in California.

Constitutional democracy is when the Courts strike it down as unconstitutional.

 

[hortysir]

The reason this happens is look at the red/blue map. The cities are controlled by the democrats that is for sure. Why they are is anyone's guess considering what the democrats have done to them. So naturally democrats elected from those districts are going to receive a large share of the vote.

But keep trying, you may actually convince someone that it wasn't an ass whooping that the left received.

Without reading further I predict lakunta, et.al. will ignore or deny

 

[peach174]

Then get out. Move to canada.

That's because we are a Constitutional Republic not a democracy.
Senators represent their States, the House represents their people from each State.

We are a democracy because the power to change the Constitution still rests in the hands of the People, which is what a democracy is.

The assumption that a state with a small population should have its People be given disproportionate power in the federal government makes no sense,

but the nature of the colonies in the 18th century made the task of uniting them one that required some ultimately nonsensical contrivances.

House...
Senate...

Understand the difference.

Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. If that was your intent, well done.

It does when you consider your statement, "The assumption that a state with a small population should have its People be given disproportionate power in the federal government makes no sense".

It absolutely makes sense when you remember that it was purposely designed precisely that way. The House was designed to be the "people's house", and went by population. The Senate was designed to give each state exactly the same representational power. Together, they craft legislation, and the popular will of the people was never supposed to be the absolute authority. But you knew that, right?

It was only designed that way because it was the only way to get the states together. That doesn't make it right.

No it wasn't.
It was designed to give equal representation to the smaller States so that the larger States could not have complete power over the smaller ones.
It's called checks and balances.

 

[Meathead]

We are a democracy because the power to change the Constitution still rests in the hands of the People, which is what a democracy is.

The assumption that a state with a small population should have its People be given disproportionate power in the federal government makes no sense,

but the nature of the colonies in the 18th century made the task of uniting them one that required some ultimately nonsensical contrivances.

House...
Senate...

Understand the difference.

Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. If that was your intent, well done.

It does when you consider your statement, "The assumption that a state with a small population should have its People be given disproportionate power in the federal government makes no sense".

It absolutely makes sense when you remember that it was purposely designed precisely that way. The House was designed to be the "people's house", and went by population. The Senate was designed to give each state exactly the same representational power. Together, they craft legislation, and the popular will of the people was never supposed to be the absolute authority. But you knew that, right?

It was only designed that way because it was the only way to get the states together. That doesn't make it right.

No it wasn't.
It was designed to give equal representation to the smaller States so that the larger States could not have complete power over the smaller ones.
It's called checks and balances.

Obviously states had to be encouraged to join the Union. No territory was going to become a state to be dominated by the larger east coast states (at the time) without concessions. Imagine dozens of states 100 years ago being fully dominated by NY. NYcabdriver's is a uniformed ditz.

 

[peach174]

The reason this happens is look at the red/blue map. The cities are controlled by the democrats that is for sure. Why they are is anyone's guess considering what the democrats have done to them. So naturally democrats elected from those districts are going to receive a large share of the vote.

But keep trying, you may actually convince someone that it wasn't an ass whooping that the left received.

I think it's because city dwellers are removed more from self independence.
The city governments does their trash and sewers and water and is collected by their taxes.
This alienists them from self responsibilities
Rural dwellers have to take care of their own septic tanks at their own expense, hire independent trash collectors (entrepreneurs) or take their trash to the county dumps themselves and maintain their wells also at their expense.

 

[peach174]

House...
Senate...

Understand the difference.

Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. If that was your intent, well done.

It does when you consider your statement, "The assumption that a state with a small population should have its People be given disproportionate power in the federal government makes no sense".

It absolutely makes sense when you remember that it was purposely designed precisely that way. The House was designed to be the "people's house", and went by population. The Senate was designed to give each state exactly the same representational power. Together, they craft legislation, and the popular will of the people was never supposed to be the absolute authority. But you knew that, right?

It was only designed that way because it was the only way to get the states together. That doesn't make it right.

No it wasn't.
It was designed to give equal representation to the smaller States so that the larger States could not have complete power over the smaller ones.
It's called checks and balances.

Obviously states had to be encouraged to join the Union. No territory was going to become a state to be dominated by the larger east coast states (at the time) without concessions. Imagine dozens of states 100 years ago being fully dominated by NY. NYcabdriver's is a uniformed ditz.

You realize that the Constitution was written when we had only 13 colonies before there was territories?
Jeez

 

[hadit]

Then get out. Move to canada.

That's because we are a Constitutional Republic not a democracy.
Senators represent their States, the House represents their people from each State.

We are a democracy because the power to change the Constitution still rests in the hands of the People, which is what a democracy is.

The assumption that a state with a small population should have its People be given disproportionate power in the federal government makes no sense,

but the nature of the colonies in the 18th century made the task of uniting them one that required some ultimately nonsensical contrivances.

House...
Senate...

Understand the difference.

Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. If that was your intent, well done.

It does when you consider your statement, "The assumption that a state with a small population should have its People be given disproportionate power in the federal government makes no sense".

It absolutely makes sense when you remember that it was purposely designed precisely that way. The House was designed to be the "people's house", and went by population. The Senate was designed to give each state exactly the same representational power. Together, they craft legislation, and the popular will of the people was never supposed to be the absolute authority. But you knew that, right?

It was only designed that way because it was the only way to get the states together. That doesn't make it right.

Have fun changing it.

 

[Meathead]

Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. If that was your intent, well done.

It does when you consider your statement, "The assumption that a state with a small population should have its People be given disproportionate power in the federal government makes no sense".

It absolutely makes sense when you remember that it was purposely designed precisely that way. The House was designed to be the "people's house", and went by population. The Senate was designed to give each state exactly the same representational power. Together, they craft legislation, and the popular will of the people was never supposed to be the absolute authority. But you knew that, right?

It was only designed that way because it was the only way to get the states together. That doesn't make it right.

No it wasn't.
It was designed to give equal representation to the smaller States so that the larger States could not have complete power over the smaller ones.
It's called checks and balances.

Obviously states had to be encouraged to join the Union. No territory was going to become a state to be dominated by the larger east coast states (at the time) without concessions. Imagine dozens of states 100 years ago being fully dominated by NY. NYcabdriver's is a uniformed ditz.

You realize that the Constitution was written when we had only 13 colonies before there was territories?
Jeez

You realize that there were "sea-to-sea" grants by the British crown and rhe writers of the constitution were not fools?

 

[NYcarbineer]

We are a democracy because the power to change the Constitution still rests in the hands of the People, which is what a democracy is.

The assumption that a state with a small population should have its People be given disproportionate power in the federal government makes no sense,

but the nature of the colonies in the 18th century made the task of uniting them one that required some ultimately nonsensical contrivances.

House...
Senate...

Understand the difference.

Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. If that was your intent, well done.

It does when you consider your statement, "The assumption that a state with a small population should have its People be given disproportionate power in the federal government makes no sense".

It absolutely makes sense when you remember that it was purposely designed precisely that way. The House was designed to be the "people's house", and went by population. The Senate was designed to give each state exactly the same representational power. Together, they craft legislation, and the popular will of the people was never supposed to be the absolute authority. But you knew that, right?

It was only designed that way because it was the only way to get the states together. That doesn't make it right.

No it wasn't.
It was designed to give equal representation to the smaller States so that the larger States could not have complete power over the smaller ones.
It's called checks and balances.

So you deny that the Senate setup was NOT put into the Constitution to get the small population states on board? lol, you're an idiot.

You've obviously never even heard of the Great Compromise.

 

[peach174]

We are a democracy because the power to change the Constitution still rests in the hands of the People, which is what a democracy is.

The assumption that a state with a small population should have its People be given disproportionate power in the federal government makes no sense,

but the nature of the colonies in the 18th century made the task of uniting them one that required some ultimately nonsensical contrivances.

House...
Senate...

Understand the difference.

Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. If that was your intent, well done.

It does when you consider your statement, "The assumption that a state with a small population should have its People be given disproportionate power in the federal government makes no sense".

It absolutely makes sense when you remember that it was purposely designed precisely that way. The House was designed to be the "people's house", and went by population. The Senate was designed to give each state exactly the same representational power. Together, they craft legislation, and the popular will of the people was never supposed to be the absolute authority. But you knew that, right?

No he doesn't know that.
He doesn't understand how our Government runs at all.

I know exactly how our government runs but unlike you I'm not living in the 18th century.

I guess you'd have no problem if California broke up into 4 states and possibly ended up with 8 Democratic senators instead of 2. lol

Right now California has the largest of House Representatives of all the States.
If that happened,then there would be less Representatives in the House for the whole State of California. Checks and balances.
It looks like the people will get to vote on making it 6 States in 2016.
Even if the people approve you will need the Congressional approval. That'e not very likely because of the array of feasibility problems, including a vast reorganization of water and energy delivery systems, and the inevitable onslaught of fierce litigation.
Be careful California you would get 12 Senators but less representation in the House.
It would give more represenative power to the more poorer Central Califoria State and put them in control of the water system in their State.