US Midterm Elections Megathread III: Hitting The Wall

[Shrillland]

"Hey! That's a convertible, not a car!"

Are this many people truly this ignorant of american history? Federalism? The Connecticut Compromise?

That's how I felt after reading that and similar statements from the Huffington Post. If we're going to attack the Senate as undemocratic because it should somehow be reflective of the national popular vote rather than that of the states that send people to it, then we're attacking one of the basic ideas of American government: The idea that the states are autonomous and equal to one another. There is no solution to this alleged problem that can be used and still allow this country to maintain a proper federal system of government.

[Tarsonis]

Are this many people truly this ignorant of american history? Federalism? The Connecticut Compromise?

That's how I felt after reading that and similar statements from the Huffington Post. If we're going to attack the Senate as undemocratic because it should somehow be reflective of the national popular vote rather than that of the states that send people to it, then we're attacking one of the basic ideas of American government: The idea that the states are autonomous and equal to one another. There is no solution to this alleged problem that can be used and still allow this country to maintain a proper federal system of government.

Sure there is. Repeal the 17th

[Hakons]

Senate Races: 35

Democratic Votes: 46.6 million - 57.9% - 20.3 seats (irl 21 seats) (+2 ind. that vote Democratic)

Republican Votes: 33.9 million - 42.1% - 14.7 seats (irl 11 seats)

Clearly, Republicans have been cheated out of a few national senator seats.

[Shrillland]

That's how I felt after reading that and similar statements from the Huffington Post. If we're going to attack the Senate as undemocratic because it should somehow be reflective of the national popular vote rather than that of the states that send people to it, then we're attacking one of the basic ideas of American government: The idea that the states are autonomous and equal to one another. There is no solution to this alleged problem that can be used and still allow this country to maintain a proper federal system of government.

Sure there is. Repeal the 17th

That would make the left-wing opponents even more vociferous since it's not technically a solution. Besides, it's fine to let the people of the states decide on their legislators.

[Conserative Morality]

Senate Races: 35

Democratic Votes: 46.6 million - 57.9% - 20.3 seats (irl 21 seats) (+2 ind. that vote Democratic)

Republican Votes: 33.9 million - 42.1% - 14.7 seats (irl 11 seats)

Clearly, Republicans have been cheated out of a few national senator seats.

Good, so I can count you as a supporter of Senate reform now?

[Shrillland]

Senate Races: 35

Democratic Votes: 46.6 million - 57.9% - 20.3 seats (irl 21 seats) (+2 ind. that vote Democratic)

Republican Votes: 33.9 million - 42.1% - 14.7 seats (irl 11 seats)

Clearly, Republicans have been cheated out of a few national senator seats.

Good, so I can count you as a supporter of Senate reform now?

What reform's needed? Seriously, are we going to cast aside the very concept of federalism and become a unitary state?

[Conserative Morality]

What reform's needed? Seriously, are we going to cast aside the very concept of federalism and become a unitary state?

If that's how you interpret people not having their influence on national policy weighted depending on where they live, sure.

[Farnhamia]

Good, so I can count you as a supporter of Senate reform now?

What reform's needed? Seriously, are we going to cast aside the very concept of federalism and become a unitary state?

Really. The Senate was designed to be insulated from the winds of public opinion. That's why Senators were chosen originally by state legislatures and why they serve longer terms that the president. The House, with its two-year terms, is the snapshot of the will of the people. This is not rocket science.

[Hakons]

Senate Races: 35

Democratic Votes: 46.6 million - 57.9% - 20.3 seats (irl 21 seats) (+2 ind. that vote Democratic)

Republican Votes: 33.9 million - 42.1% - 14.7 seats (irl 11 seats)

Clearly, Republicans have been cheated out of a few national senator seats.

Good, so I can count you as a supporter of Senate reform now?

No, it was an obvious joke. Your entire premise is laughably stupid and wrong. This demonstrated that.

[Conserative Morality]

No, it was an obvious joke. Your entire premise is laughably stupid and wrong. This demonstrated that.

How did it demonstrate that my premise was "laughably stupid and wrong"?

[Hakons]

What reform's needed? Seriously, are we going to cast aside the very concept of federalism and become a unitary state?

If that's how you interpret people not having their influence on national policy weighted depending on where they live, sure.

If only there was another chamber of the legislature that was based on population. That would certainly be a good addition to our republic.

[Conserative Morality]

If only there was another chamber of the legislature that was based on population. That would certainly be a good addition to our republic.

Democracy or land, take your pick.

[Shrillland]

What reform's needed? Seriously, are we going to cast aside the very concept of federalism and become a unitary state?

If that's how you interpret people not having their influence on national policy weighted depending on where they live, sure.

It is how I interpret it because, as Farm said, the Senate was meant to be a House of States rather than a House of People. This is why every state whether large or small gets two senators. If we decide that the Senate should be changed into something based on proportion, then we defeat the purpose of having states in the first place.

[Hakons]

No, it was an obvious joke. Your entire premise is laughably stupid and wrong. This demonstrated that.

How did it demonstrate that my premise was "laughably stupid and wrong"?

Maybe you've changed what you're arguing (you often do that), but earlier you were complaining about how the senate results were not representative of the mystical senatorial "popular" vote. When this scheme was applied, it hurt democrats more.

[Conserative Morality]

Maybe you've changed what you're arguing (you often do that), but earlier you were complaining about how the senate results were not representative of the mystical senatorial "popular" vote.

Correct. I bitched about land voting. I remember it like it was yesterday.

When this scheme was applied, it hurt democrats more.

And?

[Hakons]

If only there was another chamber of the legislature that was based on population. That would certainly be a good addition to our republic.

Democracy or land, take your pick.

States, not land. States have people in them. States are governments. The states are in union in the United States. Basic federalism my dude.

[Conserative Morality]

It is how I interpret it because, as Farm said, the Senate was meant to be a House of States rather than a House of People. This is why every state whether large or small gets two senators. If we decide that the Senate should be changed into something based on proportion, then we defeat the purpose of having states in the first place.

States have a number of purposes beyond being archaic voting districts for one house of Congress.

[Conserative Morality]

States, not land. States have people in them. States are governments. The states are in union in the United States. Basic federalism my dude.

Land it is, I see.

[Hakons]

Maybe you've changed what you're arguing (you often do that), but earlier you were complaining about how the senate results were not representative of the mystical senatorial "popular" vote.

Correct. I bitched about land voting. I remember it like it was yesterday.

When this scheme was applied, it hurt democrats more.

And?

I'm not going to continue this pointlessness. Here's another issue:

Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, Colorado, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Iowa, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Vermont must be sad they couldn't take part in the "national" senatorial elections.

[Hakons]

States, not land. States have people in them. States are governments. The states are in union in the United States. Basic federalism my dude.

Land it is, I see.

Now you're not even trying to make anything resembling a debate. I'll leave you to your rambling.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm not going to continue this pointlessness.

I'm sorry that I have consistent values. It must be horribly inconvenient for whatever strawman you had planned. I've bitched about land voting for years. I'm pretty sure I bitched about it in my YEC/Conservative Libertarian days.

[Shrillland]

It is how I interpret it because, as Farm said, the Senate was meant to be a House of States rather than a House of People. This is why every state whether large or small gets two senators. If we decide that the Senate should be changed into something based on proportion, then we defeat the purpose of having states in the first place.

States have a number of purposes beyond being archaic voting districts for one house of Congress.

There is only one solution when you put it like that: Kill the Senate completely and set up a unicameral legislature. For a country of our size, that isn't an option. Most other nations with a federal government has a Senate with seats equally apportioned to each state. And no, if we get rid of that, then we're saying that the states don't truly matter as autonomous bodies or that states should not be equal before the law or the federal government, which opens the flood gates to other measures that will all but destroy their usefulness.

[Conserative Morality]

There is only one solution when you put it like that: Kill the Senate completely and set up a unicameral legislature.

Why jump to such radical measures?

For a country of our size, that isn't an option. Every other nation with a federal government has a Senate with seats equally apportioned to each state. And no, if we get rid of that, then we're saying that the states don't truly matter as autonomous bodies, which opens the flood gates to other measures that will all but destroy their usefulness.

The states don't truly matter as autonomous bodies, and haven't for over a century and a half.

[Shrillland]

There is only one solution when you put it like that: Kill the Senate completely and set up a unicameral legislature.

Why jump to such radical measures?

For a country of our size, that isn't an option. Every other nation with a federal government has a Senate with seats equally apportioned to each state. And no, if we get rid of that, then we're saying that the states don't truly matter as autonomous bodies, which opens the flood gates to other measures that will all but destroy their usefulness.

The states don't truly matter as autonomous bodies, and haven't for over a century and a half.

Then tell me what the solution is. Do like India did, perhaps?

And...just because we changed the definition of state sovereignty doesn't mean we killed it altogether. Otherwise, we wouldn't have states with legal marijuana or the choice to be right-to-work.

[Len Hyet]

There is only one solution when you put it like that: Kill the Senate completely and set up a unicameral legislature.

Why jump to such radical measures?

For a country of our size, that isn't an option. Every other nation with a federal government has a Senate with seats equally apportioned to each state. And no, if we get rid of that, then we're saying that the states don't truly matter as autonomous bodies, which opens the flood gates to other measures that will all but destroy their usefulness.

The states don't truly matter as autonomous bodies, and haven't for over a century and a half.

You can't effectively govern a country the size of the US without lower semi-autonomous governmental bodies. States are necessary because of the simple fact that regional differences matter. An economic policy that makes sense in Florida does not by necessity make sense in North Dakota. That is why the Senate exists, so that those smaller states have a voice in policies that effect them.