That was true so long as it was state legislatures which appointed Senators. Now that Senators are elected directly by the masses that is no longer the case.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.
Completely incorrect -- it isn't to prevent tyranny of the masses just from the people -- but from state vs state tyranny.
So you don't have everyone in one state pushing through things that hurts another state, since everyone has the same voice in the senate.
Also this is in place in a limited way with the house of reps, since there is a limited number of reps spread out across all the states -- the states with more reps, and that gain reps from the census gain a double bonus -- they get more votes, and everyone else has less votes -- so in the house the bigger states rule, while in the senate everyone supposedly has an equal chance.
The supreme court is in place to piss everyone off and tell them they are wrong -- that's why it's a lifetime appointment -- so they don't have to worry about what everyone else thinks -- just what is right by the consitution and the laws of the land (but mostly the consitution).
|
The problem with the Senate is the procedural filibuster -- and the changes to the filibuster rules in the past decades that have resulted in a Senator being able to effortlessly and painlessly filibuster without having to stand on the floor of the senate and read the phone book. They filibuster without personal inconvenience in having to do so. This was a mistake. Even the Late Robert Byrd said so.
More importantly, the filibuster has added a supermajority requirement to legislation that the Constitution does not require. The rules concerning cloture with the Senate have evolved to the point where they have become an impermissible -- and fundamental -- amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Appropriated by the Senate FOR the Senate.
The Constitution was ALREADY set up by some men who distrusted government more than was probably wise, but the filibuster has magnified that structural problem to the point where very little can ever be accomplished in Washington.
The filibuster has made Washington unworkable for decades.
That's the issue. It's the only issue, really. Get rid of it -- the climate in Washington would immediately change.
The Senate has appropriated for itself through procedural rules an importance within the branches of government that it was never intended to possess. Put bluntly, the Senate has subverted the Constitution.
That this is not self-evident and echoed in every post here is, frankly, stunning; absolutely, jaw-droppingly stunning.
The so-called "nuclear option", that the president pro-tem declare that the Constitution over-rides the procedural rules of the Senate has been obvious to all and has been discussed since 1957 (Nixon wrote about it. This is not and never has been a Red vs. Blue argument where Blue is all about ending the filibuster).
The problem is that the Senators, collectively, are each in it for the long haul. They know that while this term they may be in the majority -- a term or two later they may well be in the minority. The power in the Senate is thus defined not by what it can pass, but what it can block in order to extort other concessions or simply prevent the implementation of another legislative vision for the country. The filibuster magnifies the power of each Senator beyond that which was intended and ends in nothing much being done in Washington at all -- all by reason of the filibuster.
The filibuster is a massive unconstitutional roadblock that practically ensures that nothing gets done. Ever.
The Senate, seeing its power greatly enhanced by the procedural filibuster, prefers to retain the unequal power it has appropriated for itself. Each Senator has put for him or herself and their own agenda over the preferences of the majority of voters of the day across the land.
For good or ill, the procedural filibuster must be ended. Once and for all.
Steel wind, very well said and I agree with you.
I do however disagree with term limits because they are unconstitutional.
Washington served two terms because he wanted to make way for others therby setting precedent. I think the two term limit makes it very hard for a president to do his job. He gets in and it's great but IF he gets reelected then everybody knows he's on his way out and thus they can pretty much stall or wait him out. With NO term limits the power of the presidency would be better able to be used.
Same with house and senate. I'm from north Carolina and there was a reason we kept sending our great senator Jesse Helms back to represent us. He got the job done and made sure that NC got it's share of any money being passed around.
The fillabuster needs to go but the terms should not be limited.
Then again some of my ideas have been called "radical" before. I am still of the opinion the federal reserve needs to be abolished intotal and the countries money returnd to the congress, along with putting us back on the gold standard.
I would make the following procedural changes to the Senate rules:
1. Eliminate holds. No single Senator should have the ability to hold up the nation's business.
2. Limit the number of times per Congress (i.e., per two-year term) that a party can invoke the filibuster. Somewhere in the 5-10 range sounds about right. That way a party needs to pick and choose its battles rather than just sitting back and obstructing for the sake of obstructing.
3. Require a REAL filibuster. Break out the sleeping bags and water bottles and start reading the phone book. No more calling a filibuster and then heading out to dinner at Komi.
4. Require that all riders and amendments to a bill be directly relevant to the subject of the bill.
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.
Dude! There's a serious chance you know my friend or at least have heard of him. I'm not giving out any info either, but if I'm ever up there to visit, I'll see if I can e-mail you or something.
Dude! There's a serious chance you know my friend or at least have heard of him. I'm not giving out any info either, but if I'm ever up there to visit, I'll see if I can e-mail you or something.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.
Well, I graduated high school in '84 and college in '88. Is that the right timeframe?
Dude! There's a serious chance you know my friend or at least have heard of him. I'm not giving out any info either, but if I'm ever up there to visit, I'll see if I can e-mail you or something.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.
Well, I graduated high school in '84 and college in '88. Is that the right timeframe?
No, you're much older than us both.
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.
I also live in upstate New York - Mechanicville. I hear what you're saying about New York City and I do get it. I guess I'm wishing that the FINANCIAL side of governance would be separated by the MORAL side of things. I want my cake, and I want to EAT the sucker. I want areas that would be prone to being financially ruined by an urban majority to be protected from that. I also don't want some podunk d-bag out in the midwest somewhere basically to have 2 or 3 votes to my 1 vote as to whether or not we should HONOR the people who serve in our military regardless of sexual orientation.
|
|
I also live in upstate New York - Mechanicville. I hear what you're saying about New York City and I do get it. I guess I'm wishing that the FINANCIAL side of governance would be separated by the MORAL side of things. I want my cake, and I want to EAT the sucker. I want areas that would be prone to being financially ruined by an urban majority to be protected from that. I also don't want some podunk d-bag out in the midwest somewhere basically to have 2 or 3 votes to my 1 vote as to whether or not we should HONOR the people who serve in our military regardless of sexual orientation.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.
DADT is a serious boil on the ass of America. It needs to go away big time. Just ensure sexual harassment rules are evenly applied to all possible combos, let everyone serve, and tell Bosephus from Asscrack Missouri to get over it, and everything should work out nicely.
Same with house and senate. I'm from north Carolina and there was a reason we kept sending our great senator Jesse Helms back to represent us. He got the job done and made sure that NC got it's share of any money being passed around.
The fillabuster needs to go but the terms should not be limited.Then again some of my ideas have been called "radical" before. I am still of the opinion the federal reserve needs to be abolished intotal and the countries money returnd to the congress, along with putting us back on the gold standard.
Knowing you're a gay man, I find it very ironic to hear you call Jesse Helms 'great'.
DADT is a serious boil on the ass of America. It needs to go away big time. Just ensure sexual harassment rules are evenly applied to all possible combos, let everyone serve, and tell Bosephus from Asscrack Missouri to get over it, and everything should work out nicely.I also live in upstate New York - Mechanicville. I hear what you're saying about New York City and I do get it. I guess I'm wishing that the FINANCIAL side of governance would be separated by the MORAL side of things. I want my cake, and I want to EAT the sucker. I want areas that would be prone to being financially ruined by an urban majority to be protected from that. I also don't want some podunk d-bag out in the midwest somewhere basically to have 2 or 3 votes to my 1 vote as to whether or not we should HONOR the people who serve in our military regardless of sexual orientation.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.
Exactly. Tyranny can come from a lot of places, the minority included. Getting rid of the filibuster would be a great start.
...I'm from north Carolina and there was a reason we kept sending our great senator Jesse Helms back to represent us. He got the job done and made sure that NC got it's share of any money being passed around. ...Knowing you're a gay man, I find it very ironic to hear you call Jesse Helms 'great'.
{starts scribbling new song lyrics}
|
|
Exactly. Tyranny can come from a lot of places, the minority included. Getting rid of the filibuster would be a great start.DADT is a serious boil on the ass of America. It needs to go away big time. Just ensure sexual harassment rules are evenly applied to all possible combos, let everyone serve, and tell Bosephus from Asscrack Missouri to get over it, and everything should work out nicely.I also live in upstate New York - Mechanicville. I hear what you're saying about New York City and I do get it. I guess I'm wishing that the FINANCIAL side of governance would be separated by the MORAL side of things. I want my cake, and I want to EAT the sucker. I want areas that would be prone to being financially ruined by an urban majority to be protected from that. I also don't want some podunk d-bag out in the midwest somewhere basically to have 2 or 3 votes to my 1 vote as to whether or not we should HONOR the people who serve in our military regardless of sexual orientation.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.
Making them have to actually filibuster (c'mon, the Webster/Calhoun/Clay filibusters were pretty awesome) and not just mail it in would regulate the use of it nicely. I'd love to see someone actually reading the D.C. phone book or a Twilight novel (that would make the opposition cry for mercy!) for hours on end until their voice broke. THAT'S commitment to an ideal. No one is actually going to do that unless they truly feel strongly about something.
Just get rid of the procedural filibuster and I think it would be ok.
{starts scribbling new song lyrics}...I'm from north Carolina and there was a reason we kept sending our great senator Jesse Helms back to represent us. He got the job done and made sure that NC got it's share of any money being passed around. ...Knowing you're a gay man, I find it very ironic to hear you call Jesse Helms 'great'.
Ha! I seriously want to see you do it. XD
|
|
Ha! I seriously want to see you do it. XD{starts scribbling new song lyrics}...I'm from north Carolina and there was a reason we kept sending our great senator Jesse Helms back to represent us. He got the job done and made sure that NC got it's share of any money being passed around. ...Knowing you're a gay man, I find it very ironic to hear you call Jesse Helms 'great'.
She kissed me on the cheek once.
She kissed me on the cheek once.Ha! I seriously want to see you do it. XD{starts scribbling new song lyrics}...I'm from north Carolina and there was a reason we kept sending our great senator Jesse Helms back to represent us. He got the job done and made sure that NC got it's share of any money being passed around. ...Knowing you're a gay man, I find it very ironic to hear you call Jesse Helms 'great'.
Was this after you told her Uncle Joey was a bïtch? :p
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.
Yuck, no thanks. Presidental terms should be longer, not shorter. They're already campaigning half the time...
|
|
Yuck, no thanks. Presidental terms should be longer, not shorter. They're already campaigning half the time...
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.
Exactly how much more time would you want Bush to have had???
And, yeah, Obama never stopped campaigning. It's like someone forgot to tell him he won...
Yuck, no thanks. Presidental terms should be longer, not shorter. They're already campaigning half the time...
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.
Exactly how much more time would you want Bush to have had???
And, yeah, Obama never stopped campaigning. It's like someone forgot to tell him he won...
I think a limit of two six-year terms is reasonable to consider. Personally, I don't think Bush would have been re-elected in a hypothetical 2006 election, but if he was, then so be it.
Personally, I don't think Bush would have been re-elected in a hypothetical 2006 election, but if he was, then so be it.Regardless of your opinion on Bush, he really owes his 2004 re-election to his greatest accomplice............The Democratic Party. By putting the most inept candidate possible against him his victory was all but assured.
Having voted for that inept candidate because he was the lesser of two evils, I agree. Unless some knight in shining armor comes out of the woodworks by surprise, with what is currently in the field of the GOPs anchoring for the big chair, it's looking to be a role reversal for 2012 for the Presidency.
That was true so long as it was state legislatures which appointed Senators. Now that Senators are elected directly by the masses that is no longer the case.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.
Completely incorrect -- it isn't to prevent tyranny of the masses just from the people -- but from state vs state tyranny.
So you don't have everyone in one state pushing through things that hurts another state, since everyone has the same voice in the senate.
Again that was true when Senators were appointed by state legislators. The state legislators would see to it that men were sent who protected their interests, basically prevent infringing on their power.
But that is no longer true now that Senators are elected by the masses. People don't tend to think of themselves as Californians being screwed over by North Dakotans because North Dakota receives more federal money than they put in while California receives less.
People just tend to think in terms of what they themselves can get from the rich and/or middle class. It almost never comes up in a Senate race that their state is getting tyrannized by other states.
Again not so much -- if you have more representitves in the senate -- and your people are going to shove through what you like dispite my state's wishes to the contrary why would I stay part of the union where I'm getting dictated to?
The basic premise of the senate is equality among states. Without the senate to prevent the populous driven house from running rough shod over anyone not currently in vogue (including states) we would have a tryanny of the masses in almost every concievable way.
Now if you want to do away with states all together we might be getting somewhere but that would also require the elimination of political parties.
|
Having voted for that inept candidate because he was the lesser of two evils, I agree. Unless some knight in shining armor comes out of the woodworks by surprise, with what is currently in the field of the GOPs anchoring for the big chair, it's looking to be a role reversal for 2012 for the Presidency.Personally, I don't think Bush would have been re-elected in a hypothetical 2006 election, but if he was, then so be it.Regardless of your opinion on Bush, he really owes his 2004 re-election to his greatest accomplice............The Democratic Party. By putting the most inept candidate possible against him his victory was all but assured.
I'm not so sure about that. If the candidate is crazy, then hell no. Imagine if that anti-masturbation chick was a candidate. She would lose so damn fast...
The Repubs need to field someone smart, eloquent and politically savvy, or they will lose. Trust me, the vast majority of Americans are not so disappointed in Obama that they'll elect another Bush.
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.
Actually, one could serve up to 10 years as president. If you are next in the line of succession and the president is obliging enough to drop dead with exactly 2 years remaining in his term, you can serve out that term and still be elected to 2 full terms of your own. I believe that if you serve more than half of someone else's term, you can only be elected once thereafter.
Having voted for that inept candidate because he was the lesser of two evils, I agree. Unless some knight in shining armor comes out of the woodworks by surprise, with what is currently in the field of the GOPs anchoring for the big chair, it's looking to be a role reversal for 2012 for the Presidency.Personally, I don't think Bush would have been re-elected in a hypothetical 2006 election, but if he was, then so be it.Regardless of your opinion on Bush, he really owes his 2004 re-election to his greatest accomplice............The Democratic Party. By putting the most inept candidate possible against him his victory was all but assured.I'm not so sure about that. If the candidate is crazy, then hell no. Imagine if that anti-masturbation chick was a candidate. She would lose so damn fast...
The Repubs need to field someone smart, eloquent and politically savvy, or they will lose. Trust me, the vast majority of Americans are not so disappointed in Obama that they'll elect another Bush.
I don't see why you were disagreeing with me in your opening paragraph when your conclusion is the same as mine. I was specifically referring to the GOP trying to produce some knight in shining armor as their current field of candidates won't pull the upset over Obama.
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.
A review of American politics from 1840 - 1905 will reveal some of the flaws of this system. The 17th amendment came about because of cronyism, voting irregularities (both within individual elections and between states) and the power of state level political machines.
Given how few people actually show up a vote for their state level reps, much less in the primaries for state reps, this would probably given broad power to a very select group of citizens.
The great irony is that some self-identified populist candidates in this election cycle support repealing the 17th Amendment (good luck) whereas in the 1850's, direct election of Senators was seen as the very core of the populist ideals.
The Repubs need to field someone smart, eloquent and politically savvy, or they will lose.
I'd like to see either party to put up someone who cares about balancing the books half as much as they do about social crusades -- whether the latter involve trying to save our souls by regulating the bedroom, or trying to save the downtrodden through passing some new silver bullet law that somehow they imagine no one has ever thought of.
|
|
The Repubs need to field someone smart, eloquent and politically savvy, or they will lose.I'd like to see either party to put up someone who cares about balancing the books half as much as they do about social crusades -- whether the latter involve trying to save our souls by regulating the bedroom, or trying to save the downtrodden through passing some new silver bullet law that somehow they imagine no one has ever thought of.
You know what? It's not the Republicans I hate. It's Conservatives. I'm not just getting trickle down economics when I elect a Repub for President, I'm electing an anti-gay, anti-abortion candidate to office. And then they have the nerve to talk about less government intrusion, but they pick and choose who has rights or not.
The fact of the matter is, no President (the most powerful individual in the world) can enact change without slogging through so much red tape that he just gives up. Everyone likes to blame the man, but in reality, all he does is sign the s!~@ his cabinet approves and puts in front of him. I really only hated Bush because he was never in the White House, he was always on his ranch clearing brush all day. I mean yes, I get it, he's a figure head, but that doesn't mean he has to rub it in.
People from states with a lower population than mine do NOT deserve to have a stronger legislative voice than I do.
Agreement? Disagreement?
Disagree.
I also think there are more serious problems to consider with regards to congressional representation. I'm one of roughly 600,000 U.S. citizens who has no voting representation in Congress whatsoever-- house or senate. That's a population that outnumbers that of some states. And it's a population of citizens who pay taxes and yet have no voice in the legislative governance of the U.S.
Taxation without representation is by no means dead in our fair country.
Disagree.
I also think there are more serious problems to consider with regards to congressional representation. I'm one of roughly 600,000 U.S. citizens who has no voting representation in Congress whatsoever-- house or senate. That's a population that outnumbers that of some states. And it's a population of citizens who pay taxes and yet have no voice in the legislative governance of the U.S.
Taxation without representation is by no means dead in our fair country.
Geographically speaking, that sounds like it puts you in 1) Washington D.C. or 2) Puerto Rico. I'm going with the former. (?)
|
|
Geographically speaking, that sounds like it puts you in 1) Washington D.C. or 2) Puerto Rico. I'm going with the former. (?)Disagree.
I also think there are more serious problems to consider with regards to congressional representation. I'm one of roughly 600,000 U.S. citizens who has no voting representation in Congress whatsoever-- house or senate. That's a population that outnumbers that of some states. And it's a population of citizens who pay taxes and yet have no voice in the legislative governance of the U.S.
Taxation without representation is by no means dead in our fair country.
I have an awesome fix for your problem. It's called moving. You made a choice to live somewhere that is unrepresented, you can make a choice to leave it, too.
|
|
I don't see why you were disagreeing with me in your opening paragraph when your conclusion is the same as mine. I was specifically referring to the GOP trying to produce some knight in shining armor as their current field of candidates won't pull the upset over Obama.Having voted for that inept candidate because he was the lesser of two evils, I agree. Unless some knight in shining armor comes out of the woodworks by surprise, with what is currently in the field of the GOPs anchoring for the big chair, it's looking to be a role reversal for 2012 for the Presidency.Personally, I don't think Bush would have been re-elected in a hypothetical 2006 election, but if he was, then so be it.Regardless of your opinion on Bush, he really owes his 2004 re-election to his greatest accomplice............The Democratic Party. By putting the most inept candidate possible against him his victory was all but assured.I'm not so sure about that. If the candidate is crazy, then hell no. Imagine if that anti-masturbation chick was a candidate. She would lose so damn fast...
The Repubs need to field someone smart, eloquent and politically savvy, or they will lose. Trust me, the vast majority of Americans are not so disappointed in Obama that they'll elect another Bush.
Oh, I thought you were saying the opposite, my bad. But we agree then, so it's all cool, right?
I have an awesome fix for your problem. It's called moving. You made a choice to live somewhere that is unrepresented, you can make a choice to leave it, too.Geographically speaking, that sounds like it puts you in 1) Washington D.C. or 2) Puerto Rico. I'm going with the former. (?)Disagree.
I also think there are more serious problems to consider with regards to congressional representation. I'm one of roughly 600,000 U.S. citizens who has no voting representation in Congress whatsoever-- house or senate. That's a population that outnumbers that of some states. And it's a population of citizens who pay taxes and yet have no voice in the legislative governance of the U.S.
Taxation without representation is by no means dead in our fair country.
Why yes, I am a District resident. And I don't buy your argument. I consider it irrelevant.
Are you saying you think it's entirely just and fair for citizens of the U.S. to have no voice in the representational government while they pay taxes and otherwise contribute to society? Based solely on the geographical accident of where they live? Wasn't there some little conflict with Britain about something like this a couple hundred years ago...?
|
|
The purpose of the bicameral system as the founders established it was to ensure that in order for statutes that would be binding on the whole nation to come into existance that they must have the support not only of the majority of the people, but also the majority of the states. The whole point was to ensure that Wyoming and California as states were represented equally. If you look at most nations that have a unicameral system they apportion seats not by population but by political party. I am fairly certain that the types of outcomes that the OP appears to want to occur (based on his not disputing the question of why he chose to post this when he did) would not be any more likely to occur is a system where all the seats are handed out based on population, based on the voting trends across the country over the last decade.
|
|
I also think there are more serious problems to consider with regards to congressional representation. I'm one of roughly 600,000 U.S. citizens who has no voting representation in Congress whatsoever-- house or senate. That's a population that outnumbers that of some states. And it's a population of citizens who pay taxes and yet have no voice in the legislative governance of the U.S.
Taxation without representation is by no means dead in our fair country.
I have an awesome fix for your problem. It's called moving. You made a choice to live somewhere that is unrepresented, you can make a choice to leave it, too.I don't support that thought for D.C. residents. The rest of us aren't forced to travel further to our jobs if we want to be able to vote on the national level. D.C. wasn't supposed to have permanent residents, but the future doesn't always move according to what the founding fathers thought at the time. Of course, they could always just put the land back as part of Maryland and Virginia like it originally was.
Now, if she lived in Puerto Rico I'd have much less sympathy, as they can change things by voting yes on statehood. They haven't yet, even knowing what it entails. That's much more of a choice to not have representation that being forced to choose between supporting yourself or voting.
That's because the rest of us didn't chose to live in DC. Waah.
Considering the D.C. crime rates, I didn't think anyone there was eligible to vote anyway...
<sarcasm>Yes, all 600,000 residents of the district are convicted felons. Every single one of us.</sarcasm>
Shall I now start making snide remarks about how everyone from Texas is an uneducated redneck?
(Which I wouldn't do even if I believed it were true. Insulting people categorically for no good reason is rarely productive in what is theoretically a civil discussion.)
|
|
The problem with D.C. statehood (and it would otherwise qualify under the rules under which most US States were brought into the Union) is that the electorate is overwhelmingly Democrat in D.C. - consistently 68%+ or so. More than any other region in the USA, actually.
Think the partisan Republican in Congress are in a rush to permanently put two liberal Democratic Senators in the Senate for the next 5 decades? Nope. They won't. And without 65 members of the Senate in the Democrat column to force it through - it won't happen.
Even Blue Dogs are in no rush to have their power-through-dissent diluted by two permanent liberals in the Senate being added from D.C..
Which brings us back to the filibuster and what role two additional liberal Democratic Senators from D.C. would play in terms of the national balance of power.
Consider the effect that Quebec leaving Canada might have on that country's unity. Many have suggested that event could soon lead to having the Rest of Canada petition to join the United States, as 6 or 7 new States. Every single one of those Canadian provinces -- even Alberta -- would be staunchly liberal Democrat until essentially the end of days. So much so that the Republicans would be permanently out of power in Washington for the next four decades. The change in the Senate of 12 new Democratic Senators would even put the filibuster beyond their grasp.
In a real sense, the Yankees would be in power in Washington in a way that has not happened since Reconstruction.
Think that will happen anytime soon? Nope. Socially conservative Republicans would attempt to block it almost any cost. Although Canada's geography + Manifest Destiny and all of its resources would be VERY hard to rationally turn down to voters. The GOP might not be able to stop it (assuming Canadians would even be in favour of it, which is quite unlikely.) But still, it would be a very interesting scenario.
Is the current situation fair to D.C. or Peurto Rico? No - it isn't.
Now, if she lived in Puerto Rico I'd have much less sympathy, as they can change things by voting yes on statehood. They haven't yet, even knowing what it entails. That's much more of a choice to not have representation that being forced to choose between supporting yourself or voting.That's because the rest of us didn't chose to live in DC. Waah.
I suppose you also believe that those uppity colonists should have just shut up and not insisted on having a voice in the government their monetary contributions funded in the first place, then? They chose to live here, so why should they have complained about King George exploiting them?
If you believe their decision to rebel and create a representative democracy was the right one, then I really don't understand how you can think it's appropriate to replicate the very situation they were rebelling against in our own modern society.
|
|
Considering the D.C. crime rates, I didn't think anyone there was eligible to vote anyway...<sarcasm>Yes, all 600,000 residents of the district are convicted felons. Every single one of us.</sarcasm>
Shall I now start making snide remarks about how everyone from Texas is an uneducated redneck?
(Which I wouldn't do even if I believed it were true. Insulting people categorically for no good reason is rarely productive in what is theoretically a civil discussion.)
Lighten up. Seriously. But, really, outside of Georgetown, D.C. may as well be Detroit for livability. The fact y'all elected a convicted crackhead mayor once tells me it's a good thing y'all have no voice in National politics...
D.C. was never meant to be a residential city. Never should have been. They need to separate the Capitol district from the rest of the city and give everything except the District to Maryland.
|
Considering the D.C. crime rates, I didn't think anyone there was eligible to vote anyway...<sarcasm>Yes, all 600,000 residents of the district are convicted felons. Every single one of us.</sarcasm>
Howdy neighbor!
Well... they did bring back marion barry to city council... ;-)Actually, I've always wondered why DC just be part of Maryland again, thereby giving residents the representation rights, the federal portions of the city can still be controlled by congress. Didn't Virginia reabsorb its portion of DC back into the state's fold (looking at alexandria and arlington county). Then again, come election time, I think lots parts of Virginia would wish those areas wouldn't be part of the Virginia jurisdiction...
edit: darn you houston, you ninja'd my response. :-P
Houston, you should check out the rest of dc outside of what you know of georgetown, there's plenty of livable areas there now.
edit2: adams morgan/dupont area, all of northwest, areas around capitol hill area is changing (area right around Union station is actually nice).
Lighten up. Seriously. But, really, outside of Georgetown, D.C. may as well be Detroit for livability. The fact y'all elected a convicted crackhead mayor once tells me it's a good thing y'all have no voice in National politics...Considering the D.C. crime rates, I didn't think anyone there was eligible to vote anyway...<sarcasm>Yes, all 600,000 residents of the district are convicted felons. Every single one of us.</sarcasm>
Shall I now start making snide remarks about how everyone from Texas is an uneducated redneck?
(Which I wouldn't do even if I believed it were true. Insulting people categorically for no good reason is rarely productive in what is theoretically a civil discussion.)
And no other state or city has ever elected a criminal to office? But I suppose it's different when the crime in question is a white collar offense. (NOT that I'm making excuses for Marion Barry, or that I think he should have been elected. I don't, and I've certainly never voted for him.)
D.C. was never meant to be a residential city. Never should have been. They need to separate the Capitol district from the rest of the city and give everything except the District to Maryland.
Haven't spent much time here, have you?
D.C has the same problem that any large urban area does, but it's hardly the wasteland you're making it out to be. It's got a vibrant network of neighborhoods, brilliant art, culture, and music. My neighborhood (which is NOT Georgetown or Capitol Hill) has several good restaurants and bars within walking distance of my house. And I walk there without fearing for my life.
And perhaps D.C. wasn't meant to be a residential city when the founders came up with the idea, but that doesn't change the fact that it IS now. And Maryland doesn't WANT the city back. That option has been suggested and pursued several times, I believe.
|
|
Lighten up. Seriously. But, really, outside of Georgetown, D.C. may as well be Detroit for livability. The fact y'all elected a convicted crackhead mayor once tells me it's a good thing y'all have no voice in National politics...Considering the D.C. crime rates, I didn't think anyone there was eligible to vote anyway...<sarcasm>Yes, all 600,000 residents of the district are convicted felons. Every single one of us.</sarcasm>
Shall I now start making snide remarks about how everyone from Texas is an uneducated redneck?
(Which I wouldn't do even if I believed it were true. Insulting people categorically for no good reason is rarely productive in what is theoretically a civil discussion.)
And no other state or city has ever elected a criminal to office? But I suppose it's different when the crime in question is a white collar offense. (NOT that I'm making excuses for Marion Barry, or that I think he should have been elected. I don't, and I've certainly never voted for him.)
D.C. was never meant to be a residential city. Never should have been. They need to separate the Capitol district from the rest of the city and give everything except the District to Maryland.Haven't spent much time here, have you?
D.C has the same problem that any large urban area does, but it's hardly the wasteland you're making it out to be. It's got a vibrant network of neighborhoods, brilliant art, culture, and music. My neighborhood (which is NOT Georgetown or Capitol Hill) has several good restaurants and bars within walking distance of my house. And I walk there without fearing for my life.
And perhaps D.C. wasn't meant to be a residential city when the founders came up with the idea, but that doesn't change the fact that it IS now. And Maryland doesn't WANT the city back. That option has been suggested and pursued several times, I believe.
To be honest, I haven't been there since I was stationed at Ft. Belvoir in '89. I guess some gentrification has happened since. It was a complete s@+$hole back then.