People from states with a lower population than mine do NOT deserve to have a stronger legislative voice than I do.
Agreement? Disagreement?
|
The senate (or the house) isn't the problem. It's the career politicians that are the problem. Institute term limits (I think one term would be best, but we'd probably have to settle for two), including throwing out anybody who is in excess of those term limits, and you will see a dramatic decrease in the influence of lobbyists. I also think we should require senators and house reps to sign agreements saying they will not work for any company connected to any legislation they voted on.
|
The senate (or the house) isn't the problem. It's the career politicians that are the problem. Institute term limits (I think one term would be best, but we'd probably have to settle for two), including throwing out anybody who is in excess of those term limits, and you will see a dramatic decrease in the influence of lobbyists. I also think we should require senators and house reps to sign agreements saying they will not work for any company connected to any legislation they voted on.
Wouldn't that be awesome?
I've never understood why term limits would be an answer to corruption. Seems like if you are not worried about re-election you could just sell your vote for your entire tenure and then walk away.
It would get rid of career politicians, but I don't think it would get rid of corruption.
Currently, they sell their voters for re-election money. Term limits would prevent them from getting re-elected so the bribes they take would have to be received in another way - one which theoretically would be easier to prosecute.
The senate (or the house) isn't the problem. It's the career politicians that are the problem. Institute term limits (I think one term would be best, but we'd probably have to settle for two), including throwing out anybody who is in excess of those term limits, and you will see a dramatic decrease in the influence of lobbyists. I also think we should require senators and house reps to sign agreements saying they will not work for any company connected to any legislation they voted on.
If only my friend. That would be a great step in the right direction I think.
|
|
The senate (or the house) isn't the problem. It's the career politicians that are the problem. Institute term limits (I think one term would be best, but we'd probably have to settle for two), including throwing out anybody who is in excess of those term limits, and you will see a dramatic decrease in the influence of lobbyists. I also think we should require senators and house reps to sign agreements saying they will not work for any company connected to any legislation they voted on.
Noble, but I think politicians would become the lobbyists then. Political machines would be reinstated to produce short term puppets. I hate to be pessimistic about it, but term limits would hinder getting good politicians in place in the long haul. Good statesmen would be forced to leave behind their legislation to newer ones in hopes they'd continue. It'd also make good statesmen not want to create new legislation toward the end of their terms, which might make the legislative branch EVEN LAZIER.
And the legislative branch has been acting all surprised lately that the judicial branch is exercising their constitutional duty to maintaining checks and balances. "Judicial activism" my butt. It's the only way things are getting done around here.
|
|
People from states with a lower population than mine do NOT deserve to have a stronger legislative voice than I do.
Agreement? Disagreement?
Rubbish! Every one has the right to their own seat in the Senate and the Obligation to represent themselves. ANyone who thinks otherwise needs to be dragged off and shot for Treason.
Canada should have representation, eh?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I always liked the original* Senate appointment rules - IIRC, Senators were appointed by the governors of the states or by whatever method the states deemed appropriate. The concept being that the states were semi-sovereign and the senators would represent their interests in the republic.
I don't think we can go back to that system, but I thought it was clever.
I'm not a fan of term limits. Their practical application does not at all match up with their theoretical benefits. I put them in the same bucket as socialism (well, socialism pre 08, back when people would always say "socialism is great in theory, but in practice, it never works"). California has term limits, and all it does is move the pieces around the board. The problematic legislators become problematic lobbyists. In the meantime, the legislators that do exist have almost no experience and aren't capable of working effectively together. They also still need to raise money for the election, so it's not as if the corrupting influence of cash just vanishes - it simply becomes a riskier investment because victory is less certain. Maybe someone can point to a real world instance where such a system has worked - I imagine there must be some out there.
Besides, there already are term limits. Just vote the guys out. I'm not a big fan of paternalistic legislation, which is all term limits are. They effectively say "you voters aren't smart enough to get rid of the bad guys, so we'll just toss everyone out after so many years, and call it good enough." The right of the people to be morons shall not be infringed, in my opinion.
*I'm not entirely certain that's how the original rules worked the elction procedures for the Senate changed a number of times over the history of the U.S. No one cares about those amendments because they were superceded by whatever amendment that made them directly elected. For more information, consult your local Wikipedia, where you can learn about this and other exciting constitutional law facts.
Why, Because you did not get the result you wanted today? The timing of this thread is hardly coincidental.
The Senate is a constitutional atavism that might have been remotely excusable in pre-telegraph days, kind of like states, that long ago went infectious. Like states. If we must have two chambers, and that's a truly awful idea, then the upper chamber should be either a powerless rubber stamp or allocated by proportional representation.
"The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away."
-Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin
Part of the reason the Senate exists is to prevent the will of the majority from being the only consideration. Just because something is the will of 51% of the people doesn't mean it is a good idea. Plenty of terrible things have happened that a majority supported throughout history. Ideally (and sadly things in any government or lack thereof tend to fall somewhat short of the ideal) the Senate exists to force a balance between the rights of the majority and the rights of everyone else.
No elected branch can be depended on to protect the rights of minorities, as they are in their very nature majoritarian. You may as well as Focus on the Family to protect gay rights. The protection of minorities is a task for the courts, who shall police the legislature and ensure that the majority must grant a right to all for it to be enjoyed by any.
I'm going to go right on preferring one person, one vote, thanks. I don't think a person who lives in Wyoming is several times more worthy than a person living in California, nor that one's worth is reduced or enhanced by moving across meaningless lines on a map. Convince me that the aforementioned is the case and I shall consider apportionment based on something other than population. Until then, it's a basic human rights matter.
People from states with a lower population than mine do NOT deserve to have a stronger legislative voice than I do.
Agreement? Disagreement?
Disagree in the strongest possible terms.
I live in New York State, and can tell you from experience that we really only have the rights the huge population that lives in New York City allows us to have. We have a giant state park that encompasses private land, all overseen by a board that includes as few voting members from inside that area as possible.
The whole purpose of states (and counties until the disaster decision by the Earl Warren court) having a house with an equal voice was to prevent exactly what is happening in New York. It is run by idiots who think "Upstate" begins at the sign that says "now leaving New York City" and make all sorts of decisions for us even though they haven't a clue about what is happening.
And yes, as soon as I can afford to, I plan on moving to a state that doesn't have 55-60% of the population is a tiny area.
The Senate is a constitutional atavism that might have been remotely excusable in pre-telegraph days, kind of like states, that long ago went infectious. Like states. If we must have two chambers, and that's a truly awful idea, then the upper chamber should be either a powerless rubber stamp or allocated by proportional representation.Part of the reason the Senate exists is to prevent the will of the majority from being the only consideration. Just because something is the will of 51% of the people doesn't mean it is a good idea. Plenty of terrible things have happened that a majority supported throughout history. Ideally (and sadly things in any government or lack thereof tend to fall somewhat short of the ideal) the Senate exists to force a balance between the rights of the majority and the rights of everyone else.
HEY! I'm living in BROOKLYN here!!!
I think that's part of the reason why there U.S. system has 2 houses. One based on population (which controls the purse strings) and one based on arbitrary lines on a map. This prevents Wyoming from being turned into something that exists to support the whims of the ones who live in California, because they should have just as many rights even though they don't have the population to back it up in the House. But my opinion has been swayed by living in a state where my area has been stepped on by another solely because more people live in it.
In the absence of more than vague hyperbole, I'm unmoved.
I consider the very act of granting representation to anything other than people a pure out abomination against the very concept of having human rights. At best it's a farce, at worst it's slavery. Once again, you need to convince me that Wyoming residents are superior to Californians. One or the other must be subhuman to get me on board with even considering giving one party extra votes.
No elected branch can be depended on to protect the rights of minorities, as they are in their very nature majoritarian. You may as well as Focus on the Family to protect gay rights. The protection of minorities is a task for the courts, who shall police the legislature and ensure that the majority must grant a right to all for it to be enjoyed by any.The problem with this logic is the judges on those courts would be appointed by the very majority they are supposed to protect the minority from. That's kind of like asking the fox to protect the henhouse.
Not if the judges are properly insulated. Give 'em sufficiently long, single terms (say 20 years or more) with generous retirement and they cease to be obliged to the legislature the second they're appointed. They cannot be reappointed, so they're never running for reelection. They are thus free to make the unpopular rulings in a way elected officials never shall be.
|
|
Pfffft. String theory invalidates fences.Canada should have representation, eh?WHere? in the USA? Phuut! Canada is part of a World Spanning Commonwealth. We should all fence the USA in and leave you to die in your little Prison.
String theory invalidates everything.
"Isnt that right mr Fibble?"
The Sock nods in agreement.
|
|
Pfffft. String theory invalidates fences.Canada should have representation, eh?WHere? in the USA? Phuut! Canada is part of a World Spanning Commonwealth. We should all fence the USA in and leave you to die in your little Prison.String theory invalidates everything.
"Isnt that right mr Fibble?"
The Sock nods in agreement.
Alright you win. A fence works two ways, ya know...
People from states with a lower population than mine do NOT deserve to have a stronger legislative voice than I do.
Agreement? Disagreement?
Um someone has completely missed the point of the senate. Go read up on your consitutional history, hm?
It is specifically designed to stop the "tyranny of the masses", and to slow things up.
*blink*
~Slowly backs away from the thread~
make Lady GaGa your eternal god-empress, and everything is solved
I don't like my meat within meat.
HEY! I'm living in BROOKLYN here!!!Upstate. As in you aren't Upstate until Albany is south of you Upstate. Specifically the Adirondack Park area.
My friend lives in Binghamton and one of my friends went to school in Rochester. Just shouting at you from down south. And I know upstate has different issues facing it than down here does, both should be given equal consideration regardless of where people who get voted into office come from.
|
|
HEY! I'm living in BROOKLYN here!!!Upstate. As in you aren't Upstate until Albany is south of you Upstate. Specifically the Adirondack Park area.My friend lives in Binghamton and one of my friends went to school in Rochester. Just shouting at you from down south. And I know upstate has different issues facing it than down here does, both should be given equal consideration regardless of where people who get voted into office come from.
I grew up Upstate. We pretty much figured we were the forgotten people who had to live with whatever crumbs NYC and Long Island left over after we were taxed to death to support y'all.
I grew up Upstate. We pretty much figured we were the forgotten people who had to live with whatever crumbs NYC and Long Island left over after we were taxed to death to support y'all.HEY! I'm living in BROOKLYN here!!!Upstate. As in you aren't Upstate until Albany is south of you Upstate. Specifically the Adirondack Park area.My friend lives in Binghamton and one of my friends went to school in Rochester. Just shouting at you from down south. And I know upstate has different issues facing it than down here does, both should be given equal consideration regardless of where people who get voted into office come from.
Actually, I do support some of the more radical tax reforms suggested by our northern neighbors to ease their burden. I do not think the way it is currently structured is fair to either party.
|
|
HEY! I'm living in BROOKLYN here!!!Upstate. As in you aren't Upstate until Albany is south of you Upstate. Specifically the Adirondack Park area.
I grew up Upstate. We pretty much figured we were the forgotten people who had to live with whatever crumbs NYC and Long Island left over after we were taxed to death to support y'all.
Yeah -- I'm from the Capital District, and man, if I hear one more person say "Well, isn't New York City the capital of New York?", I think I'll puke.
Upstate. As in you aren't Upstate until Albany is south of you Upstate. Specifically the Adirondack Park area.
Troy is north of Albany -- I made it!
as part of the current wider debate on election reform, there are suggestions being made that the boundaries be shifted, to make more rural patches, but fewer, bigger, urban ones. the debate is talking about how this would give the Concervatives an advantage over Labour. of course, this is then getting into wider questions about how our current election system is coping with a multiple-party system, as the number of parties with seats in parliment is growing
So after a century of working to eliminate rotten boroughs, the Tories want to introduce more rot? That sounds about right.
The senate (or the house) isn't the problem. It's the career politicians that are the problem. Institute term limits (I think one term would be best, but we'd probably have to settle for two), including throwing out anybody who is in excess of those term limits, and you will see a dramatic decrease in the influence of lobbyists. I also think we should require senators and house reps to sign agreements saying they will not work for any company connected to any legislation they voted on.
President has 2 term max/8 years, so senate/house should have 4 term/8 years as well.
Actually I say make the presidential term 2 years as well, max 8 years, taht way you can get them out faster if they're screwing up.
In ADDITION remove Corporate corruption by making every bill stand on it's own. NO RIDERS!!!
Make it illegal to pass legislation without READING it
Make it illegal to move on to a CEO job after you retire...as in you've done your service to the country, now go retire, not get a cushy high paying job cuz you screwed over the company for MonSatan
Institute a NEW watchdog organization that is beholden to the citizens who can investigate who/what they feel they need to with full policing authority.
After thinking about it... wouldn't it make more sense to abolish the House of Representatives? With all the gerrymandered districts virtually guarenteeing a victory by one party or the other, few districts are competitive enough for Americans to have a real decision come election day. Without a senate, it is only those competitive districts which would determine who controls the legislature and therefore what policies are enacted.
After thinking about it... wouldn't it make more sense to abolish the House of Representatives? With all the gerrymandered districts virtually guarenteeing a victory by one party or the other, few districts are competitive enough for Americans to have a real decision come election day. Without a senate, it is only those competitive districts which would determine who controls the legislature and therefore what policies are enacted.
In a perfect world, we'd abolish territorial constituencies completely and have a unicameral parliament appointed by proportional representation off party lists.
In regards to our nations government, the fair people of this land have proclaimed:
"Mulligan!"
My friend lives in Binghamton and one of my friends went to school in Rochester.
Hey, I live in Binghamton, and I went to school in Rochester... (Well, Brockport). Small world.