What is the purpose of the Senate?

[Votto]

The Founding Fathers created two chambers of Congress, one that had the direct vote from the people in the House, and the other chamber to be appointed by the state legislatures in the Senate. The Founders decided to have the Senators elected in order to help thwart the potential destructive forces of a democracy and to help preserve the sovereignty of the states.

However, the all knowing and enlightened progressives at the turn of the 20th century knew better, and decided to have Senators directly elected instead via the 17th amendment. However, since we already have direct representation by the House with our votes, why have the Senate?

Won't you help us help ourselves? Either give states their right to appoint Senators again or get rid of the Senate.



People like John McClown have been in there since birth. Does anyone think we need clowns like McCain in Congress? In fact, terms for Senators are longer than those in the House. It would seem to me that democracy lovers would want more frequent elections rather than Mubarak like terms in office.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Bicameralism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[candycorn]

The Founding Fathers created two chambers of Congress, one that had the direct vote from the people in the House, and the other chamber to be appointed by the state legislatures in the Senate. The Founders decided to have the Senators elected in order to help thwart the potential destructive forces of a democracy and to help preserve the sovereignty of the states.

However, the all knowing and enlightened progressives at the turn of the 20th century knew better, and decided to have Senators directly elected instead via the 17th amendment. However, since we already have direct representation by the House with our votes, why have the Senate?

Won't you help us help ourselves? Either give states their right to appoint Senators again or get rid of the Senate.

View attachment 28459

People like John McClown have been in there since birth. Does anyone think we need clowns like McCain in Congress? In fact, terms for Senators are longer than those in the House. It would seem to me that democracy lovers would want more frequent elections rather than Mubarak like terms in office.

None whatsoever. The House should assume the Senate's roles and it should be disbanded.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Founding Fathers created two chambers of Congress, one that had the direct vote from the people in the House, and the other chamber to be appointed by the state legislatures in the Senate. The Founders decided to have the Senators elected in order to help thwart the potential destructive forces of a democracy and to help preserve the sovereignty of the states.

However, the all knowing and enlightened progressives at the turn of the 20th century knew better, and decided to have Senators directly elected instead via the 17th amendment. However, since we already have direct representation by the House with our votes, why have the Senate?

Won't you help us help ourselves? Either give states their right to appoint Senators again or get rid of the Senate.

View attachment 28459

People like John McClown have been in there since birth. Does anyone think we need clowns like McCain in Congress? In fact, terms for Senators are longer than those in the House. It would seem to me that democracy lovers would want more frequent elections rather than Mubarak like terms in office.

None whatsoever. The House should assume the Senate's roles and it should be disbanded.

Dumbest quote of the day.

 

[zeke]

Dumbest quote of the day in the most stupid thread started today. Hey good luck with your "repeal" of the Senate. Maybe you can get that done after the repeal of Obamacare.

And you do know what would happen IF frogs had wings don't cha?

 

[tyroneweaver]

nuclear option: Voter suppression by the left

 

[USNavyVet]

I would love to see the Senate go back to being appointed by the states but that won't happen anytime soon. Just wait until the progressives get rid of the electoral college. Then the states will really be nothing more than vehicles of the federal government.

Anyway, the senate still has a purpose but it does not perform the way it was originally intended. However, getting rid of the Senate only allows us to fall under one party rule that much easier. We all saw how terrible that works out for us, under both Bush and Obama as well as every other time in history that has happened.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Founding Fathers created two chambers of Congress, one that had the direct vote from the people in the House, and the other chamber to be appointed by the state legislatures in the Senate. The Founders decided to have the Senators elected in order to help thwart the potential destructive forces of a democracy and to help preserve the sovereignty of the states.

However, the all knowing and enlightened progressives at the turn of the 20th century knew better, and decided to have Senators directly elected instead via the 17th amendment. However, since we already have direct representation by the House with our votes, why have the Senate?

Won't you help us help ourselves? Either give states their right to appoint Senators again or get rid of the Senate.

View attachment 28459

People like John McClown have been in there since birth. Does anyone think we need clowns like McCain in Congress? In fact, terms for Senators are longer than those in the House. It would seem to me that democracy lovers would want more frequent elections rather than Mubarak like terms in office.

The Founding Fathers also created an amendment process to change the Constitution, because they knew that not everything they did would be viewed favorably by the American people in the future.

 

[rightwinger]

People voting for their own Senators......feel the outrage from the right

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives think that the old way of electing Senators is some sort of magic bullet to get more conservatives into the Senate,

because they see more Republican state legislatures around the country, but what they fail to take into account is how the electorate might change its voting patterns if the voters knew that in voting for their state representatives, they were also voting for their Senators.

One most likely outcome would be that by making those elections more impactful, it would increase turnout,

and higher turnout almost invariably favors Democrats.

 

[candycorn]

The Founding Fathers created two chambers of Congress, one that had the direct vote from the people in the House, and the other chamber to be appointed by the state legislatures in the Senate. The Founders decided to have the Senators elected in order to help thwart the potential destructive forces of a democracy and to help preserve the sovereignty of the states.

However, the all knowing and enlightened progressives at the turn of the 20th century knew better, and decided to have Senators directly elected instead via the 17th amendment. However, since we already have direct representation by the House with our votes, why have the Senate?

Won't you help us help ourselves? Either give states their right to appoint Senators again or get rid of the Senate.

View attachment 28459

People like John McClown have been in there since birth. Does anyone think we need clowns like McCain in Congress? In fact, terms for Senators are longer than those in the House. It would seem to me that democracy lovers would want more frequent elections rather than Mubarak like terms in office.

None whatsoever. The House should assume the Senate's roles and it should be disbanded.

Dumbest quote of the day.

The founding fathers got a lot of things right. This isn't one of them.

If you were starting a government today, it is unlikely that it would ever occur to you (much less be a good idea) to have the people elect two bodies to do essentially the same job.

It would take a re-jiggering of the House and perhaps an expansion of it's membership (which is long overdue anyway) but there is nothing the Senate can do that the House cannot if the rules were re-written.

The people already have a representative for their district who doesn't give two shits about them. Having 2 Senators who are even more detatched makes no sense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, the Senate is not going away.

Two, the states are not going to elect senators.

Three, the Senate creates its own rules.

Four, OP fail.

 

[Nyvin]

I would love to see the Senate go back to being appointed by the states but that won't happen anytime soon. Just wait until the progressives get rid of the electoral college. Then the states will really be nothing more than vehicles of the federal government.

Anyway, the senate still has a purpose but it does not perform the way it was originally intended. However, getting rid of the Senate only allows us to fall under one party rule that much easier. We all saw how terrible that works out for us, under both Bush and Obama as well as every other time in history that has happened.

It's the conservatives that want to get rid of the the electoral college

 

[rightwinger]

One, the Senate is not going away.

Two, the states are not going to elect senators.

Three, the Senate creates its own rules.

Four, OP fail.

I would love to see Republicans convince the country that they are not to be trusted with electing their own Senators

Democrats would have a field day

 

[JakeStarkey]

Too much of my GOP efforts is trying to rig the game: voter suppression, states electing senators, new districting, not letting some citizens votes, and so forth.

We need to court voters not scare the shit out of them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How does letting the people of the individual states elect their Senators to represent that state take rights away from the states?

 

[USNavyVet]

I would love to see the Senate go back to being appointed by the states but that won't happen anytime soon. Just wait until the progressives get rid of the electoral college. Then the states will really be nothing more than vehicles of the federal government.

Anyway, the senate still has a purpose but it does not perform the way it was originally intended. However, getting rid of the Senate only allows us to fall under one party rule that much easier. We all saw how terrible that works out for us, under both Bush and Obama as well as every other time in history that has happened.

It's the conservatives that want to get rid of the the electoral college

Um, no. It's the Democrats. A quick google gave me Hillary and Obama.

After Bush v. Gore, Obama, Clinton wanted Electoral College scrapped | TheHill

President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are among the politicians whose past criticisms of the Electoral College system would draw new scrutiny if there is a split verdict in this year’s presidential election.

National and swing state polls suggest it’s possible Republican Mitt Romney could win this year’s popular vote while Obama triumphs in the Electoral College — potentially marking the second time the rare split in outcomes has occurred in the last 12 years.

 

[rightwinger]

I would love to see the Senate go back to being appointed by the states but that won't happen anytime soon. Just wait until the progressives get rid of the electoral college. Then the states will really be nothing more than vehicles of the federal government.

Anyway, the senate still has a purpose but it does not perform the way it was originally intended. However, getting rid of the Senate only allows us to fall under one party rule that much easier. We all saw how terrible that works out for us, under both Bush and Obama as well as every other time in history that has happened.

It's the conservatives that want to get rid of the the electoral college

Um, no. It's the Democrats. A quick google gave me Hillary and Obama.

After Bush v. Gore, Obama, Clinton wanted Electoral College scrapped | TheHill

President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are among the politicians whose past criticisms of the Electoral College system would draw new scrutiny if there is a split verdict in this year’s presidential election.

National and swing state polls suggest it’s possible Republican Mitt Romney could win this year’s popular vote while Obama triumphs in the Electoral College — potentially marking the second time the rare split in outcomes has occurred in the last 12 years.

Republicans do not want to go to a popular vote......they would still lose

They want to change the way Electoral votes are allocated, in blue states with Republican legislatures. They want to proportion the votes in those blue states but keep it all or nothing in red states

 

[regent]

Each change has an impact on the voters, the politicians and the monied interests. What impact would changing the House tenure from two to four years have? Would it make the House reps more independent of the money or what? At present members of the House have to begin running for office within days after they are elected, and that calls for money and that calls for....

 

[Nyvin]

It's the conservatives that want to get rid of the the electoral college

Um, no. It's the Democrats. A quick google gave me Hillary and Obama.

After Bush v. Gore, Obama, Clinton wanted Electoral College scrapped | TheHill

President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are among the politicians whose past criticisms of the Electoral College system would draw new scrutiny if there is a split verdict in this year’s presidential election.

National and swing state polls suggest it’s possible Republican Mitt Romney could win this year’s popular vote while Obama triumphs in the Electoral College — potentially marking the second time the rare split in outcomes has occurred in the last 12 years.

Republicans do not want to go to a popular vote......they would still lose

They want to change the way Electoral votes are allocated, in blue states with Republican legislatures. They want to proportion the votes in those blue states but keep it all or nothing in red states

Exactly.