• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

Should the Constitution be amended to eliminate the Senate?

  • Total voters
    62
ecofarm said:
Industry experts with real world experience providing their opinions of policy and the likely impacts on them and the economy is an essential aspect of representation.
Click to expand...

As advisors, when their opinions are asked for by wise rulers.
 
ecofarm said:
I think that industry expert lobbying is integral to representation and informed development. It's not worth giving that up to fight corruption. Corruption should be engaged directly and without degrading our flow of information to the government.

I would consider banning lobbyists to be cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
As advisors, when their opinions are asked for by wise rulers.
Click to expand...

Oh please. You think that we, as an individual, group or society, need the permission of the government to inform them of our concerns? Totalitarian much?
 
ecofarm said:
Oh please. You think that we, as an individual, group or society, need the permission of the government to inform them of our concerns? Totalitarian much?
Click to expand...

Democracy should only carry so far, or it undermines the very concept of leadership.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
The structure of government is working as intended. If there is not enough agreement to do something, then the government shouldn't do it--subject to the constraints of the Constitution.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Pathetic nonsense.
 
Morality Games said:
Democracy should only carry so far, or it undermines the very concept of leadership.
Click to expand...

There's a guy named Kim over in Asia who would really like your attitude.
 
joko104 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
joko104 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ecofarm said:
There's a guy named Kim over in Asia who would really like your attitude.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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:
Morality Games said:
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.
Click to expand...


You're arguing that groups should not be allowed to speak to the government without invitation. That's asinine.
 
joko104 said:
Having two branches of Congress increasingly brings the government to a gridlock.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Morality Games said:
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.
Click to expand...


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:
Surtr said:
You can't keep people from being corrupt, but you can take the sugar away from the ants.
Click to expand...

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"?
 
joko104 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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?
 
Surtr said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Surtr said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cyrylek said:
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"?
Click to expand...

The point of lobbying would still be to have ones concerns heard by the government.
 
johndylan1 said:
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?
Click to expand...

i don't like or support any kind of gerrymandering. allowing politicians to draw their own districts is the ultimate conflict of interest.
 
joko104 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Helix said:
i don't like or support any kind of gerrymandering. allowing politicians to draw their own districts is the ultimate conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd say career politicians are the ultimate conflict of interests. Of course, I support term limits.
 
Helix said:
i don't like or support any kind of gerrymandering. allowing politicians to draw their own districts is the ultimate conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom