Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
no, it would be representing the state issues betterHaving the Senate elected indirectly by state legislatures will result in greater representation of public opinion than direct election? That's a pretty far-fetched argument.
no, it would be representing the state issues betterHaving the Senate elected indirectly by state legislatures will result in greater representation of public opinion than direct election? That's a pretty far-fetched argument.
and also pass on that responsibility to the legislatures
they are NOT arbitraryno, it would be representing the state issues betterHaving the Senate elected indirectly by state legislatures will result in greater representation of public opinion than direct election? That's a pretty far-fetched argument.
and also pass on that responsibility to the legislatures
Which gets back to the point: Why are arbitrary lines on a map more important than real flesh and blood human beings?
no, it would be representing the state issues better
and also pass on that responsibility to the legislatures
Which gets back to the point: Why are arbitrary lines on a map more important than real flesh and blood human beings?
they are NOT arbitrary
no, they are NOTWhich gets back to the point: Why are arbitrary lines on a map more important than real flesh and blood human beings?
they are NOT arbitrary
Of course they are.
they are NOT arbitrary
Of course they are.
no, they are NOT
they are definitive and static
As you are aware senators stand for election only every 6 years. Few citizens actually pay much attention to the votes of their US senators on issues, much less how they stand on some, except for the most important. People are usually not even aware when their US Senator will next stand for election. Even if they dislike a vote by their senator, by the time an election rolls around again, they will vote pretty much as they have in the past; if they voted against last time they will again, and/or vice versa.Having the Senate elected indirectly by state legislatures will result in greater representation of public opinion than direct election? That's a pretty far-fetched argument.
They are now, but that's not really the point. Why are the Dakotas two separate states? Ditto Idaho and Montana? There isn't a real reason.
I think so, no question.
We have Senators who represent 800,000 people making decisions for the 300 million of the rest of us.
I think so, no question.
We have Senators who represent 800,000 people making decisions for the 300 million of the rest of us.
Why would you ban the Senate? What purpose would that serve? It is the only body that insures that ALL states have an equal opportunity to have their concerns addressed by federal government on an EQUAL footing with every other state -because all states have the same number of Senators. The House exists as the representatives of the people of each state -the more people a state has, the more representatives they have in the House. But Senators exist as representatives of the STATE itself and all states have the equal and identical right to have their concerns addressed by federal government regardless of population. The concerns of California, New York and Florida are not the same as those of Wyoming, Nevada or even Rhode Island -and without the Senate, those states are totally screwed over and would never have its concerns addressed by federal government. There are times the concerns of states clash -but would cause significant, irreparable harm if a few densely populated and highly urbanized areas were making the decisions for the greater numbers of less densely populated, rural agricultural states.
Their representatives in the House already have the least influence anyway. Getting rid of the Senate insures the complete castration of all states but the most densely populated highly urbanized states. Federal government would be controlled only by densely populated largely urbanized states -at the expense of all other states. But the east and west coasts do not represent the majority of people living in this country though.
I never fail to be amazed by the people who haven't a clue how our own government works and seem to think we have a system that doesn't exist. Each state functions as a mini-country unto itself even while part of the union under one flag. You obviously spent much less time thinking this through than the founders did -who agonized for years about how to prevent power from becoming centralized in the hands of the most populous states which can only happen at the expense of all the other states. Our federal government is a union of the STATES, not a union of the people. Probably why its called "The United STATES of America" instead of "The People's Republic of America", huh?
no they don't, MORONI think so, no question.
We have Senators who represent 800,000 people making decisions for the 300 million of the rest of us.
Why would you ban the Senate? What purpose would that serve? It is the only body that insures that ALL states have an equal opportunity to have their concerns addressed by federal government on an EQUAL footing with every other state -because all states have the same number of Senators. The House exists as the representatives of the people of each state -the more people a state has, the more representatives they have in the House. But Senators exist as representatives of the STATE itself and all states have the equal and identical right to have their concerns addressed by federal government regardless of population. The concerns of California, New York and Florida are not the same as those of Wyoming, Nevada or even Rhode Island -and without the Senate, those states are totally screwed over and would never have its concerns addressed by federal government. There are times the concerns of states clash -but would cause significant, irreparable harm if a few densely populated and highly urbanized areas were making the decisions for the greater numbers of less densely populated, rural agricultural states.
Their representatives in the House already have the least influence anyway. Getting rid of the Senate insures the complete castration of all states but the most densely populated highly urbanized states. Federal government would be controlled only by densely populated largely urbanized states -at the expense of all other states. But the east and west coasts do not represent the majority of people living in this country though.
I never fail to be amazed by the people who haven't a clue how our own government works and seem to think we have a system that doesn't exist. Each state functions as a mini-country unto itself even while part of the union under one flag. You obviously spent much less time thinking this through than the founders did -who agonized for years about how to prevent power from becoming centralized in the hands of the most populous states which can only happen at the expense of all the other states. Our federal government is a union of the STATES, not a union of the people. Probably why its called "The United STATES of America" instead of "The People's Republic of America", huh?
Getting rid of the Senate would insure that each person in America would have equal representation in the legislature. As it is, the 800,000 people in Montana have the same political power as the 30 million people in California. That is wrong.
Which gets back to the point: Why are arbitrary lines on a map more important than real flesh and blood human beings?
they are NOT arbitrary
Of course they are.
I think so, no question.
We have Senators who represent 800,000 people making decisions for the 300 million of the rest of us.
Why would you ban the Senate? What purpose would that serve? It is the only body that insures that ALL states have an equal opportunity to have their concerns addressed by federal government on an EQUAL footing with every other state -because all states have the same number of Senators. The House exists as the representatives of the people of each state -the more people a state has, the more representatives they have in the House. But Senators exist as representatives of the STATE itself and all states have the equal and identical right to have their concerns addressed by federal government regardless of population. The concerns of California, New York and Florida are not the same as those of Wyoming, Nevada or even Rhode Island -and without the Senate, those states are totally screwed over and would never have its concerns addressed by federal government. There are times the concerns of states clash -but would cause significant, irreparable harm if a few densely populated and highly urbanized areas were making the decisions for the greater numbers of less densely populated, rural agricultural states.
Their representatives in the House already have the least influence anyway. Getting rid of the Senate insures the complete castration of all states but the most densely populated highly urbanized states. Federal government would be controlled only by densely populated largely urbanized states -at the expense of all other states. But the east and west coasts do not represent the majority of people living in this country though.
I never fail to be amazed by the people who haven't a clue how our own government works and seem to think we have a system that doesn't exist. Each state functions as a mini-country unto itself even while part of the union under one flag. You obviously spent much less time thinking this through than the founders did -who agonized for years about how to prevent power from becoming centralized in the hands of the most populous states which can only happen at the expense of all the other states. Our federal government is a union of the STATES, not a union of the people. Probably why its called "The United STATES of America" instead of "The People's Republic of America", huh?
Getting rid of the Senate would insure that each person in America would have equal representation in the legislature. As it is, the 800,000 people in Montana have the same political power as the 30 million people in California. That is wrong.
Why would you ban the Senate? What purpose would that serve? It is the only body that insures that ALL states have an equal opportunity to have their concerns addressed by federal government on an EQUAL footing with every other state -because all states have the same number of Senators. The House exists as the representatives of the people of each state -the more people a state has, the more representatives they have in the House. But Senators exist as representatives of the STATE itself and all states have the equal and identical right to have their concerns addressed by federal government regardless of population. The concerns of California, New York and Florida are not the same as those of Wyoming, Nevada or even Rhode Island -and without the Senate, those states are totally screwed over and would never have its concerns addressed by federal government. There are times the concerns of states clash -but would cause significant, irreparable harm if a few densely populated and highly urbanized areas were making the decisions for the greater numbers of less densely populated, rural agricultural states.
Their representatives in the House already have the least influence anyway. Getting rid of the Senate insures the complete castration of all states but the most densely populated highly urbanized states. Federal government would be controlled only by densely populated largely urbanized states -at the expense of all other states. But the east and west coasts do not represent the majority of people living in this country though.
I never fail to be amazed by the people who haven't a clue how our own government works and seem to think we have a system that doesn't exist. Each state functions as a mini-country unto itself even while part of the union under one flag. You obviously spent much less time thinking this through than the founders did -who agonized for years about how to prevent power from becoming centralized in the hands of the most populous states which can only happen at the expense of all the other states. Our federal government is a union of the STATES, not a union of the people. Probably why its called "The United STATES of America" instead of "The People's Republic of America", huh?
Getting rid of the Senate would insure that each person in America would have equal representation in the legislature. As it is, the 800,000 people in Montana have the same political power as the 30 million people in California. That is wrong.
Take a remedial US history class and get back to the rest of us when you actually understand how THIS system of government works instead of some imaginary one works. Your claim that the people of Montana have the same political power as those in California in federal legislature is WRONG bubba. The additional influence they have that reflects their more densely populated state is reflected in the House of Representatives -where the representatives are there representing the people of their state. The more people in their state, the more representatives they have in the House. The more representatives a state has in the House of Representatives, the more power and influence -higher population equals more power in the House.
But Senators are there to represent their entire STATE. And since all states are EQUAL under our Constitution, all states have the same number of Senators. Half of the state elects one Senator and the other half elects the other. Squalling that the states all have equal representation in ONE chamber of Congress while the other chamber reflects the population differences between those states is just ignorance at work. I guess the fact this is the United STATES also just zipped right over your head, huh? This may surprise you, but those aren't just meaningless words.
no, that bold part is incorrectWhy would you ban the Senate? What purpose would that serve? It is the only body that insures that ALL states have an equal opportunity to have their concerns addressed by federal government on an EQUAL footing with every other state -because all states have the same number of Senators. The House exists as the representatives of the people of each state -the more people a state has, the more representatives they have in the House. But Senators exist as representatives of the STATE itself and all states have the equal and identical right to have their concerns addressed by federal government regardless of population. The concerns of California, New York and Florida are not the same as those of Wyoming, Nevada or even Rhode Island -and without the Senate, those states are totally screwed over and would never have its concerns addressed by federal government. There are times the concerns of states clash -but would cause significant, irreparable harm if a few densely populated and highly urbanized areas were making the decisions for the greater numbers of less densely populated, rural agricultural states.
Their representatives in the House already have the least influence anyway. Getting rid of the Senate insures the complete castration of all states but the most densely populated highly urbanized states. Federal government would be controlled only by densely populated largely urbanized states -at the expense of all other states. But the east and west coasts do not represent the majority of people living in this country though.
I never fail to be amazed by the people who haven't a clue how our own government works and seem to think we have a system that doesn't exist. Each state functions as a mini-country unto itself even while part of the union under one flag. You obviously spent much less time thinking this through than the founders did -who agonized for years about how to prevent power from becoming centralized in the hands of the most populous states which can only happen at the expense of all the other states. Our federal government is a union of the STATES, not a union of the people. Probably why its called "The United STATES of America" instead of "The People's Republic of America", huh?
Getting rid of the Senate would insure that each person in America would have equal representation in the legislature. As it is, the 800,000 people in Montana have the same political power as the 30 million people in California. That is wrong.
Take a remedial US history class and get back to the rest of us when you actually understand how THIS system of government works instead of some imaginary one works. Your claim that the people of Montana have the same political power as those in California in federal legislature is WRONG bubba. The additional influence they have that reflects their more densely populated state is reflected in the House of Representatives -where the representatives are there representing the people of their state. The more people in their state, the more representatives they have in the House. The more representatives a state has in the House of Representatives, the more power and influence -higher population equals more power in the House.
But Senators are there to represent their entire STATE. And since all states are EQUAL under our Constitution, all states have the same number of Senators. Half of the state elects one Senator and the other half elects the other. Squalling that the states all have equal representation in ONE chamber of Congress while the other chamber reflects the population differences between those states is just ignorance at work. I guess the fact this is the United STATES also just zipped right over your head, huh? This may surprise you, but those aren't just meaningless words.
all states are equal in the senateGetting rid of the Senate would insure that each person in America would have equal representation in the legislature. As it is, the 800,000 people in Montana have the same political power as the 30 million people in California. That is wrong.
Take a remedial US history class and get back to the rest of us when you actually understand how THIS system of government works instead of some imaginary one works. Your claim that the people of Montana have the same political power as those in California in federal legislature is WRONG bubba. The additional influence they have that reflects their more densely populated state is reflected in the House of Representatives -where the representatives are there representing the people of their state. The more people in their state, the more representatives they have in the House. The more representatives a state has in the House of Representatives, the more power and influence -higher population equals more power in the House.
But Senators are there to represent their entire STATE. And since all states are EQUAL under our Constitution, all states have the same number of Senators. Half of the state elects one Senator and the other half elects the other. Squalling that the states all have equal representation in ONE chamber of Congress while the other chamber reflects the population differences between those states is just ignorance at work. I guess the fact this is the United STATES also just zipped right over your head, huh? This may surprise you, but those aren't just meaningless words.
You are right. Those are meanlingless words.
The words that matter are - All Men Are Created Equal.
Not - people from Montana are more equal than people from California.