Should the US get rid of the Senate?

[Dollystana]

Either reform the Senate or change the state borders, especially in that northeastern mess. Also split up California and Texas and make Puerto Rico a state.

[Ethel mermania]

No we don't. We want government to stay out of our lives unless it is necessary to intrude.

And folks have hated congress since congress has been in existence.

Translation: you don't want government out of your lives.

Seriously, the size of government is a non-sequitur in this conversation. Whatever aspects of life you think are "necessary to intrude" upon, those are certainly aspects you would like to actually be carried out, and not be undermined by political paralysis, unless you're some strange sort of accelerationist that just wants the stack of cards to come falling down and the world to go to hell.

Bullshit.

[Novus America]

No we don't. We want government to stay out of our lives unless it is necessary to intrude.

And folks have hated congress since congress has been in existence.

Translation: you don't want government out of your lives.

Seriously, the size of government is a non-sequitur in this conversation. Whatever aspects of life you think are "necessary to intrude" upon, those are certainly aspects you would like to actually be carried out, and not be undermined by political paralysis, unless you're some strange sort of accelerationist that just wants the stack of cards to come falling down and the world to go to hell.

Yes there are things that I like governments to do. But they mostly do them already.
Like I like my trash picked up, and there being police and firefighters.
But the federal government generally has nothing to do with that. Even if the federal government magically disappeared society would not collapse. Not that I want that, but this seems to be more a cultural an knowledge gap, you do not understand us at all.

During the shut down those things are not affected at all.

But there are many things I do NOT want the government to do. So the government, especially the Feds doing more is often a bad thing. Sometimes good, sometimes bad.

So while yes “less government is good” looks at it the wrong way, so does “more government good”.
We want some government, but not too much. And we have plenty as is.

[Duvniask]

Translation: you don't want government out of your lives.

Seriously, the size of government is a non-sequitur in this conversation. Whatever aspects of life you think are "necessary to intrude" upon, those are certainly aspects you would like to actually be carried out, and not be undermined by political paralysis, unless you're some strange sort of accelerationist that just wants the stack of cards to come falling down and the world to go to hell.

Bullshit.

Ok, Boomer.

[Giovenith]

Bullshit.

Ok, Boomer.

This would normally be a minor slap on the wrist if not for the fact that you've been wracking warnings lately with very little regard for adjusting your behavior, so I'm ramping this up to a *** 1-day-ban for trolling *** to see if that gets the message across.

[Awesomeland012345]

Can anyone younger than the Founders come up with a reality-based reason to keep the 2 Senators per state arrangement into the foreseeable future? I'll listen. but don't bet you can convince me.

the US is based on checks and balances. When it was created, large states wanted more representation and small states wanted equal representation. The house and senate were the compromise. If large states got more representation, they would have all the power. If all states had equal representation, then individual voices in small states would mean more than the ones in large states. So we compromise or there are less checks and balances.

[Atheris]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

No.

[Outer Acharet]

Can anyone younger than the Founders come up with a reality-based reason to keep the 2 Senators per state arrangement into the foreseeable future? I'll listen. but don't bet you can convince me.

the US is based on checks and balances. When it was created, large states wanted more representation and small states wanted equal representation. The house and senate were the compromise. If large states got more representation, they would have all the power. If all states had equal representation, then individual voices in small states would mean more than the ones in large states. So we compromise or there are less checks and balances.

While I agree with this statement, US-SSR specifically asked for someone younger than the Founders. This is literally the Founders' argument. If I quote Albert Einstein, it doesn't mean I'm coming up with ol' Al's reasoning anew. I'm quoting Albert Einstein.

I want to emphasize that I agree with this statement and US-SSR was stacking the deck in their favor in this argument.
I still enjoyed the argument, too, while I was a part of it.

[The Two Jerseys]

the US is based on checks and balances. When it was created, large states wanted more representation and small states wanted equal representation. The house and senate were the compromise. If large states got more representation, they would have all the power. If all states had equal representation, then individual voices in small states would mean more than the ones in large states. So we compromise or there are less checks and balances.

While I agree with this statement, US-SSR specifically asked for someone younger than the Founders. This is literally the Founders' argument. If I quote Albert Einstein, it doesn't mean I'm coming up with ol' Al's reasoning anew. I'm quoting Albert Einstein.

I want to emphasize that I agree with this statement and US-SSR was stacking the deck in their favor in this argument.
I still enjoyed the argument, too, while I was a part of it.

There's no need for a new argument. The wheel has already been invented.

[Outer Acharet]

There's no need for a new argument. The wheel has already been invented.

I know, and I agree with the old argument. US-SSR, though, asked specifically for "someone younger than the Founders," meaning they want a new argument and not repetition of the old one.

[Loben III]

Again.

The House of Representatives exist.

Which exists in a state of almost constant gridlock with the Senate. You have two often irreconcilable chambers, which is a terrible system for getting anything done.

gee almost as if two different parties control them...

hmmmm.

[Mannixa Prime]

Scrap everything except the Executive Branch...

[Awesomeland012345]

US-SSR, though, asked specifically for "someone younger than the Founders,"

I took that literally. I'm younger. They didn't ask for another argument, although maybe my interpretation is wrong.

[Outer Acharet]

US-SSR, though, asked specifically for "someone younger than the Founders,"

I took that literally. I'm younger. They didn't ask for another argument, although maybe my interpretation is wrong.

Taken with the rest of their post, I read the statement to reflect the OP's opinion that no one could give another argument, and the age of the original discredited it.

And how do I know you're younger than the founders?
What if you're secretly Ben Franklin back from the dead?
Huh?
ANSWER ME THAT, AWESOME, ARE YOU?

[Punished UMN]

Ok, Boomer.

This would normally be a minor slap on the wrist if not for the fact that you've been wracking warnings lately with very little regard for adjusting your behavior, so I'm ramping this up to a *** 1-day-ban for trolling *** to see if that gets the message across.

If Ethel wanted Duvniask to make a good faith argument, he should have made one himself. If he doesn't put the effort into arguing, why should Duvniask?

[US-SSR]

The more I see the "small states vs. large states" argument the less I buy it. The main conflict in US society isn't California and Texas vs. Rhode Island and Wyoming, it's the rich and powerful in California, Texas, Rhode Island, Wyoming and the other 46 states vs. the working people of California, Texas, Rhode Island and Wyoming and the other 46 states. Seems to me those interests making common cause with people in smaller, usually more reactionary, states isn't a particularly good argument for keeping the ridiculously outsized overrepresentation of smaller states found in the US Senate.

So, eat the rich, then?

I'd settle for taxing them at rates approaching those we tax workers for a start. We could do worse than enact something like Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax.

Well, as a Canadian you are essentially a colonist and benefiting from British colonialism.

Assuming you're not First Nations.

I am not first nations no.

Benefitting and having privilege from colonial systems =/= supporting colonialism.

Also off-topic, but there's a distinction between a racist system and a system full of racists. Which is why not-racist is no longer good enough; one must be anti-racist.

[Loben III]

So, eat the rich, then?

I'd settle for taxing them at rates approaching those we tax workers for a start. We could do worse than enact something like Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax.

I am not first nations no.

Benefitting and having privilege from colonial systems =/= supporting colonialism.

Also off-topic, but there's a distinction between a racist system and a system full of racists. Which is why not-racist is no longer good enough; one must be anti-racist.

riiiiiight.

[Cetacea]

No, a bicameral legislature is a solid means of preventing corruption.
.

Well in the US it appears to have failed

[West Leas Oros 2]

Since I would prefer not to be kicked around by larger states that don’t give a fuck about people living in say, Vermont, I can’t support this. As a Minnesotan, I already get enough shit from big states like Texas and California trying to stick its dick in a situation that shouldn’t be decided by 20 people from Dallas and 25 people from Los Angeles. The Senate exists specifically to keep larger states from abusing power over smaller ones. Why should Virginia get to push around Rhode Island? Why should New York be able to stop New Jersey from seeing to its needs. The states should be equal to each other, or otherwise, not exist.

[West Leas Oros 2]

US-SSR, you’re aware of something called checks and balances, right? Well that’s why the senate exists.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Since I would prefer not to be kicked around by larger states that don’t give a fuck about people living in say, Vermont, I can’t support this. As a Minnesotan, I already get enough shit from big states like Texas and California trying to stick its dick in a situation that shouldn’t be decided by 20 people from Dallas and 25 people from Los Angeles. The Senate exists specifically to keep larger states from abusing power over smaller ones. Why should Virginia get to push around Rhode Island? Why should New York be able to stop New Jersey from seeing to its needs. The states should be equal to each other, or otherwise, not exist.

The states only entered on the understanding they would have equal power in the Senate. It would be only fair that (if the Senate is abolished) all states would have a period of being free to leave the Union. I'd give them five years, or maybe 6. And obviously if they do leave, the US couldn't do anything to stop them forming some other association.

A rather nasty aspect of state secession which applies more than it did when the Confederates tried, is the national debt. I think states wishing to leave would have to take on a debt somewhat proportional to their share of US population. They'd have huge problems with that, as they're not going to be able to repay it on time (any more than the US can) so they'd have to refinance it, and would not have access to such cheap loans. Changing the constitution to allow the US to renege on its debt might be a necessary first step.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Since I would prefer not to be kicked around by larger states that don’t give a fuck about people living in say, Vermont, I can’t support this. As a Minnesotan, I already get enough shit from big states like Texas and California trying to stick its dick in a situation that shouldn’t be decided by 20 people from Dallas and 25 people from Los Angeles. The Senate exists specifically to keep larger states from abusing power over smaller ones. Why should Virginia get to push around Rhode Island? Why should New York be able to stop New Jersey from seeing to its needs. The states should be equal to each other, or otherwise, not exist.

The states only entered on the understanding they would have equal power in the Senate. It would be only fair that (if the Senate is abolished) all states would have a period of being free to leave the Union. I'd give them five years, or maybe 6. And obviously if they do leave, the US couldn't do anything to stop them forming some other association.

A rather nasty aspect of state secession which applies more than it did when the Confederates tried, is the national debt. I think states wishing to leave would have to take on a debt somewhat proportional to their share of US population. They'd have huge problems with that, as they're not going to be able to repay it on time (any more than the US can) so they'd have to refinance it, and would not have access to such cheap loans. Changing the constitution to allow the US to renege on its debt might be a necessary first step.

I can’t say I would be opposed to secession being an opt-out for a senateless America. Ultimately, that would probably lead to a relatively “good” outcome. I doubt such a thing would occur, though. Ultimately, I doubt the senate will be gone antime soon.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Well, yes, but first we need to find Palpatine first.

[Loben III]

US-SSR, you’re aware of something called checks and balances, right? Well that’s why the senate exists.

you see in these times that we live in, checks and balances are a racist concept put in place by the oppressor to keep the oppressed down.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Well, yes, but first we need to find Palpatine first.

I AM THE SENATE!