View Poll Results: Should the Constitution be amended to eliminate the Senate?

Voters
78. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    1 1.28%
  • No

    58 74.36%
  • No, but serious modifications in the structure of Congress is needed

    16 20.51%
  • IDK/other

    3 3.85%
Page 4 of 20 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 196

Thread: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

  1. #31
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,419

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    You're mistaking lobbyists for advisors. Advisors provide impartial insight that aids their rulers in implementing policy that achieves a balance between interested parties and allows civilization to progress.

    Lobbyists use every ounce of influence they can muster (and some of them have quite a lot) to have policy reflect that they are the most important thing in the republic and that the entire republic and all the people within it should break to serve their organization's needs.
    I'm not mistaking anything. I realize that lobbyists are out for their own interests and not objectivity. Lobbyists are industry experts lobbying the government based upon real world concerns and the impacts they expect upon their industry. Such a voice is integral to representation and informed development.

    Ordinarily I would say lobbyists are better than having no kind of advisor, but frankly the practice has become so corrupt it wouldn't matter much if incompetent rulers started implementing policy unilaterally without consulting anyone. That's pretty much what it amounts to.
    Pathetic nonsense.

  2. #32
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,419

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Democracy should only carry so far, or it undermines the very concept of leadership.
    There's a guy named Kim over in Asia who would really like your attitude.

  3. #33
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,386

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Except how it functions has changed for partisan reasons.

    The only reason the government is "shut down" is because Republicans in the House would not fund Obamacare, for which Democrats then decided to shutdown all of government instead. The Senate could have easily just passed financing everything else. The same is happening in relation to the debt.

    The "change" that has come is the media and public perception that if one aspect of government doesn't get what it wants, then all of the government and economy must be shut down. This is a radical shift in the perception of how Congress and the budget works. Until now, how it worked was everything that was agreed upon was paid for and everything else was not. Now it is that everything must be paid whether there is agreement or not, and if everything isn't paid for then nothing is paid for. And the media and public have (bizarrely in my opinion) accepted that practice.

    The potential "gridlock" used to be fully functional because it meant everything agreed upon was done, and only what was not agreed upon was "gridlocked." NOW, any disagreement shuts everything entirely down at huge economic and national danger. Thus, gridlock is no longer tolerable to allow.

    All that, of course, by passes the one-citizen-one-vote issue.

    But for your point, gridlock potential has shifted from being a safeguard to perpetual extortion and playing Russian roulette. The role of Congress in terms of budget has been 100% diametrically reversed. That reversal is supportive of an Imperial presidency if the president is of the same party as either half of Congress. Simply, the actual power of Congress has been stripped away, leaving a void and the chaos that can bring.

    Your message is no longer accurate. It is not that the government won't do what it doesn't agree on. Rather, to the government won't do anything unless everything is agreed upon. That is a diametric opposite of past practices and I believe the intent.
    My point is still valid. Yes, I object to omnibus bills that consolidate a bunch of good and bad legislation to get enough votes, but that doesn't require eliminating a house of Congress. Seems to me that they should be able to debate 1000 1-page bills in less time that it would take to debate 1 1000-page bill (if only they were that small).

    Yes, that I would change, but if they can't agree, then I'm OK with them doing nothing.

  4. #34
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Except how it functions has changed for partisan reasons.

    The only reason the government is "shut down" is because Republicans in the House would not fund Obamacare, for which Democrats then decided to shutdown all of government instead. The Senate could have easily just passed financing everything else. The same is happening in relation to the debt.

    The "change" that has come is the media and public perception that if one aspect of government doesn't get what it wants, then all of the government and economy must be shut down. This is a radical shift in the perception of how Congress and the budget works. Until now, how it worked was everything that was agreed upon was paid for and everything else was not. Now it is that everything must be paid whether there is agreement or not, and if everything isn't paid for then nothing is paid for. And the media and public have (bizarrely in my opinion) accepted that practice.

    The potential "gridlock" used to be fully functional because it meant everything agreed upon was done, and only what was not agreed upon was "gridlocked." NOW, any disagreement shuts everything entirely down at huge economic and national danger. Thus, gridlock is no longer tolerable to allow.

    All that, of course, by passes the one-citizen-one-vote issue.

    But for your point, gridlock potential has shifted from being a safeguard to perpetual extortion and playing Russian roulette. The role of Congress in terms of budget has been 100% diametrically reversed. That reversal is supportive of an Imperial presidency if the president is of the same party as either half of Congress. Simply, the actual power of Congress has been stripped away, leaving a void and the chaos that can bring.
    Interesting what you consider partisan. ACA is law. This is not a negotiation.

    That said, the problem isn't the system no matter which partisan koolaid one drowns in. The problem is politicians not behaving as legislators and staesmen, and voters thinking compromise is a bad word. Partisans are kept at fever pitch by political entertainers who feed the fire with hyperbole and inaccuracies. It's a miracle government functions at all in this climate.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #35
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    There's a guy named Kim over in Asia who would really like your attitude.
    So would the Founding Fathers, who were extremely uneasy about factionalism in Congress and never anticipated it would lead to a two-party system culture. If anything, they worried about the exact opposite, that the Senate and House would be so disparate in ideology that no cohesion would be possible, that many seperate representatives would add up to five or six prevailing viewpoints instead of just the two.

    Bringing democracy to every aspect of our polity does undermine leadership, whether you like it or not. The leader pitches his concept for the nation's future at the election but can never realize it because he is too busy answering to all the particulars of his constituent's present needs every step of his tenure.

    That's why the military isn't even slightly democratic, because leadership is so crucially important they can't indulge it at all.

    Democracy does have a role, but isn't a substitute for republicanism.

    Pathetic nonsense.
    If you say so. It seems to me that all the fine promises of globalism have fallen out from under the working man's feet, yet the organizations that demand more trade agreements still receive exactly as much deference as they did thirty years ago; even as capital disappears from our society and appears elsewhere in increasing abundance.

    This and other outcomes match pretty well with the results of incompetent rule carried out unilaterally without consulting anyone.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 10-15-13 at 01:51 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  6. #36
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,419

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    So would the Founding Fathers, who were extremely uneasy about factionalism in Congress and never anticipated it would lead to a two-party system culture. If anything, they worried about the exact opposite, that the Senate and House would be so disparate in ideology that no cohesion would be possible, that many seperate representatives would add up to five or six prevailing viewpoints instead of just the two.

    Bringing democracy to every aspect of our polity does undermine leadership, whether you like it or not. The leader pitches his concept for the nation's future at the election but can never realize it because he is too busy answering to all the particulars of his constituent's present needs every step of his tenure.

    That's why the military isn't even slightly democratic.

    Democracy does have a role, but isn't a substitute for republicanism.



    If you say so. It seems to me that all the fine promises of globalism have fallen out from under the working man's feet, yet the organizations that demand more trade agreements still receive exactly as much deference as they did thirty years ago; even as capital disappears from our society and appears elsewhere in increasing abundance.

    This and other outcomes match pretty well with the results of incompetent rule carried out unilaterally without consulting anyone.

    You're arguing that groups should not be allowed to speak to the government without invitation. That's asinine.

  7. #37
    Guru
    Cyrylek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Boston
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Having two branches of Congress increasingly brings the government to a gridlock.
    Which is a good thing. New laws should be difficult to make, and the (natural) expansion of the executive branch should be meeting as many barriers as possible. You seem to be presenting the very best feature of a functioning liberal democracy as a flaw.

  8. #38
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    You're arguing that groups should not be allowed to speak to the government without invitation. That's asinine.
    I was speaking in terms of Platonic perfection. Ideally, they would only speak with invitation, but the leaders would often invite them.

    Not achievable in material reality, but something to aspire to.

    It's a romantic idea where everyone has good morals.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  9. #39
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,419

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    I was speaking in terms of Platonic perfection. Ideally, they would only speak with invitation, but the leaders would often invite them.

    Not achievable in material reality, but something to aspire to.

    It's a romantic idea where everyone has good morals.

    No individual leader or even group of leaders has the experience and knowledge to invite every perspective on an issue - regardless of morals.

    Problems are like gems with many facets. Perspectives are needed to ascertain those facets. No group is capable (regardless of morals or intentions) of accounting for all possible perspectives, they must be brought to the government's attention.
    Last edited by ecofarm; 10-15-13 at 02:08 PM.

  10. #40
    Guru
    Cyrylek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Boston
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Surtr View Post
    You can't keep people from being corrupt, but you can take the sugar away from the ants.
    Actually, you can, in this particular case. By limiting the economic role of government to the core function of the cop. In other words, by ending the "corporate welfare". If there are no goodies being (re)distributed by Uncle Sam, what would be the point of "lobbying"?

Page 4 of 20 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •