Senators (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Optimus Prime

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    8,253
    Reaction score
    9,952
    Age
    47
    Location
    Washington DC Metro
    Offline
    Bringing this up to the the DC statehood thread and the real reason it isn't a state is that it would add 2 Democratic Senators

    I know that Bill Maher has been banging this drum for years

    Population of North & South Dakota combined (as of 2019) - 1,646,721

    Population of California (2019) - 39.51 Million

    Number of Senators for North & South Dakota - 4

    Number of Senators for California - 2

    This seems to be more than a little imbalanced wouldn't you say?

    Should the number of Senators be tied to population (one senator per X number of people)?

    Tied to party affiliation or votes?

    11 million Californians voted for Biden, but 6 million voted for Trump which is more than he got in Texas

    Keep it as it is?

    I don't know the answer but this is a huge discrepancy - and I think it's nationwide

    Seems that I read somewhere the number of people all the democratic Senators represented vs the Republicans and there was a sizeable difference
     
    As far as making Senator changes, I'd go with no - it's supposed to be equal votes for every state, and I'm ok with that.

    What you're making a grand case for is to dump the Electoral College - it does not represent the people.
     
    Bringing this up to the the DC statehood thread and the real reason it isn't a state is that it would add 2 Democratic Senators

    I know that Bill Maher has been banging this drum for years

    Population of North & South Dakota combined (as of 2019) - 1,646,721

    Population of California (2019) - 39.51 Million

    Number of Senators for North & South Dakota - 4

    Number of Senators for California - 2

    This seems to be more than a little imbalanced wouldn't you say?

    Should the number of Senators be tied to population (one senator per X number of people)?

    Tied to party affiliation or votes?

    11 million Californians voted for Biden, but 6 million voted for Trump which is more than he got in Texas

    Keep it as it is?

    I don't know the answer but this is a huge discrepancy - and I think it's nationwide

    Seems that I read somewhere the number of people all the democratic Senators represented vs the Republicans and there was a sizeable difference


    Bill Maher jokes that they're probably more people named Dakota in California than there are people in the Dakotas, I could see that actually being true. It is obscene...like I said in the voting rights thread, either tie voting power to the number of people who you represent or tie it to the number of people who voted you in. But people like McConnell and Paul need to be neutered. Sure it'll make Cruz a bigger arse, but he'd just be one big arse and it'll sorta force California to retire Feinstein and put in a fresher face.

    The biggest problem with any of this, is that you need the system as it sits today to agree to this reform....it will not allow itself to be reformed. I hate to say it because I can see how it comes of as extremist, but It'll require some sort of catastrophe or "rebirth of the nation" to spur this level of change.

    One last thing, If we're re-writing our constitution one amendment I'd personally like to see added is "Universal Pre-Nuptial agreements" :cool:

    As far as making Senator changes, I'd go with no - it's supposed to be equal votes for every state, and I'm ok with that.

    What you're making a grand case for is to dump the Electoral College - it does not represent the people.

    I disagree...respectfully of course, if we're making changes to Senators then we absolutely need to strip away the voting power of land. It isn't IS supposed to be equal votes for every state, it WAS supposed to be equal votes for every state. This was done before it was impossible to fathom single states that have more population than 70% of the other states combined...if the Founding fathers were redrafting the constitution w/ the country in its current state, there's no way in hell they'd let that fly, California and Texas would've told Rhode Island, the Dakota Territories, Idaho, and Vermont to pound sand and they would've seceded from the Union.
     
    Last edited:
    Populations being out of whack isn't anything new. Just maybe not quiet this far, but...


    Virginia had the largest population of the 13 colonies in 1776 at 747,610. It was followed by Pennsylvania at 434,373, and Massachusetts at 378,787. The smallest colony by population was Delaware at 59,094, barely bigger than Rhode Island’s 68,825. Of the thirteen colonies, which all became states, New York is the largest today with a population of 19,542,209, followed by Pennsylvania at 12,807,060.

    Virginia was approximately 12.7 times bigger than Delaware in 1776. Both had 2 senators.
     
    Populations being out of whack isn't anything new. Just maybe not quiet this far, but...




    Virginia was approximately 12.7 times bigger than Delaware in 1776. Both had 2 senators.
    I stand corrected (kinda)...perhaps it wasn't thought that the Senate be used as the legislative logjam that it is being used as today. Back then compromise wasn't a bad word, but in its infancy if the country was as politically divided then as it is now and deleware was throwing its weight around leading the charge of governmental gridlock then surely they would've marginalized it...at least i'd like to think so.

    Point is, maybe it wasn't seen as the problem that it is today because it wasn't a problem when Senators behaved themselves and actually governed.
     
    Last edited:
    Populations being out of whack isn't anything new. Just maybe not quiet this far, but...




    Virginia was approximately 12.7 times bigger than Delaware in 1776. Both had 2 senators.
    Cali is 68x more populated than WY. There were a lot of 1776 ideas that we later changed when we realized the unequal treatment of people from those ideas.
     
    Last edited:
    As far as making Senator changes, I'd go with no - it's supposed to be equal votes for every state, and I'm ok with that.

    What you're making a grand case for is to dump the Electoral College - it does not represent the people.
    The idea of the Senate being equal votes for every state was reasonable during a period of very weak federal government and direct appointed Senators. We are no longer an 18th century nation of loosely held together states and the 17 amendment made Senators arguably representatives of a state’s people as much as the state itself.
     
    Here’s my proposal to fix the Senate:
    • The 13 most populated states get 4 Senators.
    • The next 13 get 3, the following 13 get 2, and the last 11 get 1.
    • The Senate reapportions every 10 years.
    • If we add DC and PR, then they slot into the Senate based on population. They give us 52 states with four groups of 13.
    If a state wants more representation, then it should enact state polices that drive immigration from other states and encourage families. Don’t like the number of Sen., get f******.

    Currently 16% of the population (the 25 least populated states) controls 50% of the Senate. If you add in the filibuster, it get worst. The Senate is small state ruled.
     
    Here’s my proposal to fix the Senate:
    • The 13 most populated states get 4 Senators.
    • The next 13 get 3, the following 13 get 2, and the last 11 get 1.
    • The Senate reapportions every 10 years.
    • If we add DC and PR, then they slot into the Senate based on population. They give us 52 states with four groups of 13.
    If a state wants more representation, then it should enact state polices that drive immigration from other states and encourage families. Don’t like the number of Sen., get f******.

    Currently 16% of the population (the 25 least populated states) controls 50% of the Senate. If you add in the filibuster, it get worst. The Senate is small state ruled.

    Something like that wouldn’t be a bad idea.

    Would your proposal have senators elected statewide or split into districts?
     
    Something like that wouldn’t be a bad idea.

    Would your proposal have senators elected statewide or split into districts?
    It would have to remain statewide, otherwise we it would make the Senate nothing more than an unneeded congressional redundancy, kinda like what they already are. These current Senators have dismissed their Constitutional duties as Senators and have embraced the duties of The House of Representatives.
     
    It would have to remain statewide, otherwise we it would make the Senate nothing more than an unneeded congressional redundancy, kinda like what they already are. These current Senators have dismissed their Constitutional duties as Senators and have embraced the duties of The House of Representatives.


    I think if you used the ranked vote system and did away with primaries it could result in Senators more representative of the state.

    California would elect 4 liberal Senators if they did it the way we do it now, but if they had a pool of 13 candidates and everyone ranked their top 4, you might end up with a more moderately liberal or two elected as well.

    This would help make sure that in states where there is a strong majority party but a significant number of people from the other party, people don’t get disenfranchised by the tyranny of the majority.

    It would help make sure the Senate fills its role as the saucer that cools the coffee.

    The primary system pushes our parties towards their extremes.
     
    Something like that wouldn’t be a bad idea.

    Would your proposal have senators elected statewide or split into districts?
    States rights issue, but I don’t think districts for the Senate is a good idea. Agree with DJ on this.
     
    I would scrap the current form of government in a heart beat in favor of a UK/parliamentarian system. Rather than modify the Senate... why not just abolish it? What purpose does it really serve? Representation should be proportional by people not land.
     
    I would scrap the current form of government in a heart beat in favor of a UK/parliamentarian system. Rather than modify the Senate... why not just abolish it? What purpose does it really serve? Representation should be proportional by people not land.

    This. Dissolve the Senate into the House. Every state now has two more Representatives instead of Senators. Number of Representatives for any current or future state is X+2 (where X is determined by population).
     
    Bringing this up to the the DC statehood thread and the real reason it isn't a state is that it would add 2 Democratic Senators

    I know that Bill Maher has been banging this drum for years

    Population of North & South Dakota combined (as of 2019) - 1,646,721

    Population of California (2019) - 39.51 Million

    Number of Senators for North & South Dakota - 4

    Number of Senators for California - 2

    This seems to be more than a little imbalanced wouldn't you say?

    Should the number of Senators be tied to population (one senator per X number of people)?

    Tied to party affiliation or votes?

    11 million Californians voted for Biden, but 6 million voted for Trump which is more than he got in Texas

    Keep it as it is?

    I don't know the answer but this is a huge discrepancy - and I think it's nationwide

    Seems that I read somewhere the number of people all the democratic Senators represented vs the Republicans and there was a sizeable difference
    The Senate wasn't meant to be based on population like the House of Representatives.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom