Election: What Is Your Take...

[carpedm9587]

Which is why I have already argued that the 2 Senators per state regardless of the population size of the state is ridiculous. Why should the minority of the country get to decide via their senators who presides over the Supreme court? It also has an effect on the electoral college and the relative value of one's vote in say Wyoming as compared to the value of ones vote in California. A persons vote living in Wyoming is worth like four times the vote of someone in California with respect to the electoral college.

This is pretty basic, Jim. The founders wanted to balance the power of the people with the power of the states. That is why congress has two houses. The House of Representatives represents the people, which is why the district they represent are redrawn every ten years in response to the census. The idea is to keep the representation roughly proportional, so that each representative represents roughly the same number of people. If a state gets bigger, it may gain a representative. If a state gets smaller it may lose one. As the population has grown, the total number of representatives has been increased.

But the Senate represents the states - hence two senators for each state. This is specifically so that more populous states cannot always dominate small states. A law has to pass both houses to go to the president (or governor) for signature - balancing the interests of the states with the interests of the population.

[Bill the Cat]

This is pretty basic, Jim. The founders wanted to balance the power of the people with the power of the states. That is why congress has two houses. The House of Representatives represents the people, which is why the district they represent are redrawn every ten years in response to the census. The idea is to keep the representation roughly proportional, so that each representative represents roughly the same number of people. If a state gets bigger, it may gain a representative. If a state gets smaller it may lose one. As the population has grown, the total number of representatives has been increased.

But the Senate represents the states - hence two senators for each state. This is specifically so that more populous states cannot always dominate small states. A law has to pass both houses to go to the president (or governor) for signature - balancing the interests of the states with the interests of the population.

He knows. He just hates the Constitution

[Terraceth]

I still think the move to direct election of Senators was a dumb idea.

While there were some disadvantages, on the whole I think the change was for the better.

Certainly, in the present time, a repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment would only exacerbate the problem of gerrymandering because there'd be even more incentive to employ it.

[Sparko]

He knows. He just hates the Constitution

The sad thing is that JimL's opinion has nothing to actually do with the way congress is arranged or Senators elected. If things were reversed and the liberals were in charge of the Senate, he would be perfectly fine with it. Same with the electoral vote for President. He is for anything that favors Democrats and against anything that favors Republicans. Fairness doesn't enter into it.

[JimL]

This is pretty basic, Jim. The founders wanted to balance the power of the people with the power of the states. That is why congress has two houses. The House of Representatives represents the people, which is why the district they represent are redrawn every ten years in response to the census. The idea is to keep the representation roughly proportional, so that each representative represents roughly the same number of people. If a state gets bigger, it may gain a representative. If a state gets smaller it may lose one. As the population has grown, the total number of representatives has been increased.

But the Senate represents the states - hence two senators for each state. This is specifically so that more populous states cannot always dominate small states. A law has to pass both houses to go to the president (or governor) for signature - balancing the interests of the states with the interests of the population.

Yep, I know how it works carpe, what i'm saying is that it is undemocratic and what it does is to allow the minority a dominance over the majority. When Kavanaugh was recently confirmed to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court in the Senate, the democrats who opposed his confirmation represented 42 million more people than did the republican Senators who supported him. I'm not the only one who thinks this is undemocratic, James Madison, the pricnciple architect of the Constitution also opposed it, for the same reason I believe, and it only passed on a contentious 5-4 split between 9 States, Massachussets abstaining for some reason if I remember correctly.

[Cow Poke]

Yep, I know how it works carpe,...

Jim, you would have more credibility if you just said, "Oh, ok, thanks for explaining it, Carpe".

[One Bad Pig]

Jim, you would have more credibility if you just said, "Oh, ok, thanks for explaining it, Carpe".

JimL is clearly not interested in his credibility here.

[Cow Poke]

JimL is clearly not interested in his credibility here.

I find that Jim is useful for gathering up the wackiest of the leftist gossip and putting it on display here for us to know what's way around the bend.

[rogue06]

JimL is clearly not interested in his credibility here.

Don't you first need to have some in order to be concerned with preserving it?

[One Bad Pig]

Don't you first need to have some in order to be concerned with preserving it?

Not really. It is possible to gain credibility, but it takes work.

[rogue06]

Not really. It is possible to gain credibility, but it takes work.

But don't you gain it first before you can preserve it?

[Cow Poke]

Not really. It is possible to gain credibility, but it takes work.

It's just like trust - once you've broken it, it's WAY more work to restore it than it is to maintain it.

[One Bad Pig]

But don't you gain it first before you can preserve it?

Sure. I'm just sayin' it's not a one-way street.

[Sparko]

Yep, I know how it works carpe, what i'm saying is that it is undemocratic and what it does is to allow the minority a dominance over the majority. When Kavanaugh was recently confirmed to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court in the Senate, the democrats who opposed his confirmation represented 42 million more people than did the republican Senators who supported him. I'm not the only one who thinks this is undemocratic, James Madison, the pricnciple architect of the Constitution also opposed it, for the same reason I believe, and it only passed on a contentious 5-4 split between 9 States, Massachussets abstaining for some reason if I remember correctly.

you are correct. It is undemocratic.
BECAUSE WE ARE A FEDERAL REPUBLIC!

But it doesn't allow the minority dominance over the majority, it allows equal representation to each state regardless of size. It prevents the exact opposite.


And the reason they instituted the House was to balance the representation of the people with the representation of the states.

[carpedm9587]

Yep, I know how it works carpe, what i'm saying is that it is undemocratic and what it does is to allow the minority a dominance over the majority. When Kavanaugh was recently confirmed to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court in the Senate, the democrats who opposed his confirmation represented 42 million more people than did the republican Senators who supported him. I'm not the only one who thinks this is undemocratic, James Madison, the pricnciple architect of the Constitution also opposed it, for the same reason I believe, and it only passed on a contentious 5-4 split between 9 States, Massachussets abstaining for some reason if I remember correctly.

Jim - the founders were well aware of that - and intentionally created a government structure to try to bring some balance between the "tyranny of the minority" and the "tyranny of the majority." They were aware that sometimes change starts small - and sometimes the minority is right. Majority is not a guarantee of wisdom. So they created a system where it is possible for the minority to sometimes get heard.

More importantly, the founders were creating at a time when "United States" was a plural word. Many people do not realize that, up until the Civil War, it was more common to refer to "These United States" rather than "the United States." The founders saw this as a loose confederation of largely independent states with the federal government existing largely to provide for those things that required organization between the states. So they saw it as equally important for the states to be equally represented as it was for the people in those states to be equally represented. The Civil War changed all of that, and shifted the balance of power from the state level to the federal level.