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 5 of 20 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 196

Thread: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

  1. #41
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,174

    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.
    So since you don't like the current partisan make-up of the Senate, it should be abolished? Maybe we should abolish the House....


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  2. #42
    Professor

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,907

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    no, the constitution should be amended to eliminate gerrymandering by letting a computer draw all districts nationwide using only census data. this would solve all kinds of problems.
    I agree, but courts have upheld gerrymandering for the purpose of creating minority controlled districts in the fight against racism. You might like that kind of gerrymandering, no?

  3. #43
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,040

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Surtr View Post
    If we're going to do away with anything, get rid of the ****ing lobby groups. They have effectively replaced the voice of the American people with the sound of money finding its way into our elected officials pockets.
    Lobbying is protected under the first amendment. Would you get rid of it? Why not instead shrink govt to limit the power they have to sell. And have term limits to limit the time they have to sell it? Why punish citizens for the crimes of politicians?

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    02-18-14 @ 08:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,660

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Surtr View Post
    And I think that things like junkets, all expense paid trips, and financial campaign backings that result in quid pro quo arrangements are sinking the nation, simply because some legislative officials care more about their investment portfolios than the people who put them in office as a representative. If we can't get rid of lobbyists, we should certainly look into adding extreme limitations on what lobbyists are allowed to do. If their opinions are relevant, and the issues they bring up worthwhile, they shouldn't have to wine and dine our congressmen and senators.
    You might be surprised to know this, but many branches of government are not the know all for every new regulation or de-regulation. For instance many environmental leaders, engineers, and companies help the EPA write regs on solid waste, on spec and off spec used oil, pcb containment, stack emissions......etc.

    You want to stop the corruption make it a felony to accept a 10k contribution just so someone can get an audience with a senator.

  5. #45
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,409

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrylek View Post
    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"?
    The point of lobbying would still be to have ones concerns heard by the government.

  6. #46
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,114

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    I agree, but courts have upheld gerrymandering for the purpose of creating minority controlled districts in the fight against racism. You might like that kind of gerrymandering, no?
    i don't like or support any kind of gerrymandering. allowing politicians to draw their own districts is the ultimate conflict of interest.

  7. #47
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,494

    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.
    This is more an indictment of the two party system and specific rules that the Senate uses to conduct its business than it is of the two house system. The shutdown is mostly a result of Boehner having to placate a minority of his party or risk loss of his speakership. If there wasn't a speaker or if there were more parties this wouldn't be an issue.

    The Congress works well enough. I'd like to see them conduct their business differently but Constitutional changes aren't needed for that to happen
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  8. #48
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,409

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    i don't like or support any kind of gerrymandering. allowing politicians to draw their own districts is the ultimate conflict of interest.
    Personally, I'd say career politicians are the ultimate conflict of interests. Of course, I support term limits.

  9. #49
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,040

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    The point of lobbying would still be to have ones concerns heard by the government.
    Lets not forget simply voting out politicians that are perceived to be influenced by money.

  10. #50
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,830

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    i don't like or support any kind of gerrymandering. allowing politicians to draw their own districts is the ultimate conflict of interest.
    I think computer software could be developed to draw districts in a way that is as uniform as mathematically possible while completely ignoring any demographic factors like race, age, party registration, etc.

    Trouble is, implementing this as a nationwide election requirement would have to be done by the very people who stand to lose from this change.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

Page 5 of 20 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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
  •