Senators (1 Viewer)

< Previous | Next >

Optimus Prime

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,328
Reaction score
2,223
Age
44
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
 

Saintman2884

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
151
Reaction score
71
Age
41
Location
Mobile, Alabama
Offline
roleTE="Roofgardener, post: 198307, member: 361"]
Are you sure ? The UK version of The Senate is the House of Lords. Originally this was entirely unelected, and manned by Hereditary Peers. I think this was an essential compromise to get Parliament into existence ?

In more recent decades it has become somewhat more 'representative', in that 'normal' people have been elevated to the House - the so-called 'Peoples Peers'. However, they are appointed, not elected.

However it should be born in mind that the House of Lords functions in an entirely different way (apart from its composition) to the US Senate. The House of Lords is a revising chamber. It reviews new laws, and in effect asks parliament to 'think again' if it doesn't like a new law. However, Parliament is Supreme. The House of Lords can DELAY legislation, but if Parliament is determined, it cannot - unlike the US Senate - actually stop the legislation from ultimately being enacted.

In many ways it works on tradition and precedent. The HoL rarely rejects government bills, nor forces parliament to use its Witchy Powers to force legislation through. It's a bit like The Queen. In theory, she could reject a Parliamentary bill and refuse to sign it into law. But by precedent, she never does.

Incidentally, and drifting off-topic... did you know that The Queen - in law - can dissolve the UK Parliament ? Again, she has never used this power except at Parliaments bidding. But.. can you imagine.. one boring day at Buckingham Palace after a few Gin-and-Tonics....

Queen: I'm bored. Shall we do it, Phillip ?
Prince Phillip: Nooooo.. we shouldn't...
Queen: Oh go on.. lets...
Prince Phillip: Oh, alright then.
Queen: I say... you ... flunky.. get me the Price Minister on the phone...
Queen (picking up phone). Hello ? Is that Boris Johnson ? It is ? Excellent. < giggles> I just wanted to let you know that I've just dissolved your government ? Why ? I was bored :D Oh Mr Johnson, no need to swear :D Oh.. he's hung up.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, the House of Lords legislative power was once far greater and more influential than merely existing as a revising, mostly symbolic organ. It could outright reject and prevent any form of legislation and policies if its entirely rich, aristocratic, unelected landed peers didnt like a certain party. By the late 19th-early 20th century, Britain's long-smouldering sharp class-and-sectarian divide in terms of large working-class interests demanding changes being stifled by powerful, landed aristocracy who hated and despised Liberal Party proposals to alleviate misery and degradation of working-class families, improving working conditions, wages, social security and injury insurance schemes inspired by Bismarkian-Germany. Then there was also the Liberals support for female suffrage movement, which by 1910, due to frustrations at the slow pace of change, started adopting radical more militant tactics to attract media attention to their cause, as well as the Irish Home Rule debate, which honestly, some British historians have argued was such a heated, divisive topic if World War I hadn't broken out when it did, it might've led to another second English civil war-type scenario. Ireland, instead suffered a brutal civil war after WWI, that essentially partitioned the country and left a volatile, uneasy less-then-sturdy coexistence since then that's periodically blown up and exploded into violence, assassination attempts, bombings, and murders from both Provos IRA and Ulster Defense League.

The 1910 election was dubbed, "Peers vs. The People", and Liberals framed the contest as a decision between allowing their party to legally introduce, argue and try to pass legislation without unelected HOL peers continually rejecting and obstructing their policy proposals out of spite without empathy or concern for overwhelming mass populace of British population and Empire. The parliamentary elections were a landslide for the new governing Liberal party of Herbert Asquith and his quiet, reserved, but determined Foreign Secretary, David Grey. Afterwards, the new Liberal regime pretty much dissolved a great deal of the legislative powers of the HoL into the merely symbolic purpose it has now.
 

Roofgardener

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2021
Messages
457
Reaction score
144
Location
East Midlands, UK
Offline
Are you sure ? The UK version of The Senate is the House of Lords. Originally this was entirely unelected, and manned by Hereditary Peers. I think this was an essential compromise to get Parliament into existence ?

In more recent decades it has become somewhat more 'representative', in that 'normal' people have been elevated to the House - the so-called 'Peoples Peers'. However, they are appointed, not elected.

However it should be born in mind that the House of Lords functions in an entirely different way (apart from its composition) to the US Senate. The House of Lords is a revising chamber. It reviews new laws, and in effect asks parliament to 'think again' if it doesn't like a new law. However, Parliament is Supreme. The House of Lords can DELAY legislation, but if Parliament is determined, it cannot - unlike the US Senate - actually stop the legislation from ultimately being enacted.

In many ways it works on tradition and precedent. The HoL rarely rejects government bills, nor forces parliament to use its Witchy Powers to force legislation through. It's a bit like The Queen. In theory, she could reject a Parliamentary bill and refuse to sign it into law. But by precedent, she never does.

Incidentally, and drifting off-topic... did you know that The Queen - in law - can dissolve the UK Parliament ? Again, she has never used this power except at Parliaments bidding. But.. can you imagine.. one boring day at Buckingham Palace after a few Gin-and-Tonics....

Queen: I'm bored. Shall we do it, Phillip ?
Prince Phillip: Nooooo.. we shouldn't...
Queen: Oh go on.. lets...
Prince Phillip: Oh, alright then.
Queen: I say... you ... flunky.. get me the Price Minister on the phone...
Queen (picking up phone). Hello ? Is that Boris Johnson ? It is ? Excellent. < giggles> I just wanted to let you know that I've just dissolved your government ? Why ? I was bored :D Oh Mr Johnson, no need to swear :D Oh.. he's hung up.
Actually, the House of Lords legislative power was once far greater and more influential than merely existing as a revising, mostly symbolic organ. It could outright reject and prevent any form of legislation and policies if its entirely rich, aristocratic, unelected landed peers didnt like a certain party. By the late 19th-early 20th century, Britain's long-smouldering sharp class-and-sectarian divide in terms of large working-class interests demanding changes being stifled by powerful, landed aristocracy who hated and despised Liberal Party proposals to alleviate misery and degradation of working-class families, improving working conditions, wages, social security and injury insurance schemes inspired by Bismarkian-Germany. Then there was also the Liberals support for female suffrage movement, which by 1910, due to frustrations at the slow pace of change, started adopting radical more militant tactics to attract media attention to their cause, as well as the Irish Home Rule debate, which honestly, some British historians have argued was such a heated, divisive topic if World War I hadn't broken out when it did, it might've led to another second English civil war-type scenario. Ireland, instead suffered a brutal civil war after WWI, that essentially partitioned the country and left a volatile, uneasy less-then-sturdy coexistence since then that's periodically blown up and exploded into violence, assassination attempts, bombings, and murders from both Provos IRA and Ulster Defense League.

The 1910 election was dubbed, "Peers vs. The People", and Liberals framed the contest as a decision between allowing their party to legally introduce, argue and try to pass legislation without unelected HOL peers continually rejecting and obstructing their policy proposals out of spite without empathy or concern for overwhelming mass populace of British population and Empire. The parliamentary elections were a landslide for the new governing Liberal party of Herbert Asquith and his quiet, reserved, but determined Foreign Secretary, David Grey. Afterwards, the new Liberal regime pretty much dissolved a great deal of the legislative powers of the HoL into the merely symbolic purpose it has now.
Indeed Saintman. This sort of 'fudging' was what spared the UK from the horrors of the French Revolution. Instead of executing all our aristocrats, we gradually reduced their authority and influence over a period of decades, and ended up with a pretty decent democracy, without the need for an Emperor Napoleon. (though you could argue that we had an earlier version of him in the shape of Oliver Cromwell).

Just to return to the point; as I (dimly) understand it, the purpose of the Senate was to give each individual state a say in governance, and avoid a 'tyrany of the majority' which can arise from a purely populist-vote Congress ? We don't have such a mechanism in the UK as - with the marginalisation of the Dukes - we don't really have an equivalent of the States, and our 'democracy' was in a much more primitive state than that created by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, which really was one of the most remarkable document every created. (second only to the 'gardening expert' books by David Hessayon).

So I'm not sure your desire for a 'UK Parliamentary System' would necessarily be an improvement over what you already have ?
 

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.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom