• 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
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...

No. Courts tinkering with the legislative process is a bad thing no matter how laudable the goal.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Not really, the last line greatly inhibits that idea unless some state agrees to it.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate"
Click to expand...

No state is ever going to consent to losing representation.
 
jonny5 said:
Lets not forget simply voting out politicians that are perceived to be influenced by money.
Click to expand...

There are many ways to address the corruption in lobbying. Banning people from having a voice to their authority is not a way.
 
ecofarm said:
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.
Click to expand...

The perspectives of industry insiders are ultimately predictable to any who is even vaguely familiar with the situations they face. Any challenges the government would require them to overcome for the good of society as a whole are insurmountable (even with record profits), at least not without subsidies (that aren't applied toward the problem anyway), they aren't making enough money and are basically poor (with record profits). Most importantly, they are hard working and deserve respect, almost like heroes (for pursuing their own self-interest at the expense of everyone else while demanding legislation which outlaws competition that would require they behave less viciously and evil in order to survive).

Thus, the bank industry seeks to outlaw credit unions or regulate them into oblivion rather than adjust to a situation where they aren't making outrageous profits. The CEO demands a bailout because he is a job maker and thus basically provides a public service, even though all in all his company's existence is more beneficial to foreign nations and reduces the American middle-class to a power source for international expansion. Companies demand freedom (even personhood) while accepting none of the responsibility it entails when their money runs out.

You don't need lobbyists to know that people are greedy and insatiable and feel the burdens of society should rest on someone who isn't them.

A good ruler is capable of seeking out all the information he needs to make wise judgments. It is due to such abilities he should be elected to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
You don't need lobbyists to know that people are greedy and insatiable and feel the burdens of society should rest on someone who isn't them.
Click to expand...

Now you're just spewing platitudes in the justification of banning groups from having a voice in their authority. Do you know Kim?
 
joko104 said:
Having two branches of Congress increasingly brings the government to a gridlock. The Senate was created when the federal government was going to have virtually no power for which each state was a quasi-independent country joining with others primarily for military defense. But that all ended with the Civil War and is ancient history.

Why should the people and state of Wyoming have 7000% more political power than a Californian and California? Wyoming doesn't contribute 7000% more to the good of the nation. Shouldn't it be one-person-one-vote, rather than 1 vote for a California and 70 votes for a someone who votes in Wyoming? This also leads to massive out-of-state-money being thrown into low population states. The state of Wyoming and many other states have a total population that is only a fraction of just a major American city. I see no justification for that anymore.

I think the Constitution should be amended to eliminate the Senate. This is not limited to the current Congressional mess at all. Rather, it is a growing problem overall and a serious question of the fairness of democracy/republic form of government.

Your opinion?
Click to expand...

No, the idea was the House would represent the people and the senate the states. I know the 17th amendment probably did away with the senate representing the state giving the people voting power of electing their senators instead of the state legislatures appointing them.But think of this with just a president and the house. Go back to 2009 when the presidency and the house were both Democratic, one party control, no checks on what that one party could do. The Democrats could have passed massive tax increases on all, passed health care on all, Gun control on all, they could have passed any and all of their agenda. With one party control, lets say they passed a bunch of far left extreme legislation which all became law.

now in 2012 lets say the republicans took the house and the presidency, they didn't like what the democrats had just passed. So they repealed all tax increases and set a flat tax at 5% on all, they repealed all health care laws, all gun control laws, and anything else they didn't like and then proceeded with their own agenda, passing far right wing stuff. Then 4 year hence, the Democrats regained power and they inturn repeal everything the Republicans did and re-passed and enacted what ever they wanted. Now the nations goes through these wild swings, from one side to the other, no middle ground what so ever. No even keel.

The senate brings about an equilibrium. With its filbuster to protect minority party rights it prevents these wild swings. Like the senate or not, it helps keeps things and laws on a more even keel, more in the middle than what having no senate would do. It is not the senate that is broke, it is the elected officials who reside there. Politics is the art of the possible, politics is about compromise, give and take, working with the other party for the good of the country. Sure each party can have their political agendas, but be willing to take a couple of steps back by giving something to the other party in order to take three steps forward by taking something from the other party.

Head strong leaders in the senate of my way or the highway mental frame is why so much ruckus and gridlock is going on. think back to when Dole and Mitchell were the leaders, not that old go back to Dashle and Lott. Differences were worked out and government worked. Take away Reid and McConnell, replace them with maybe a Alexander and Manchin, or a Collins and Tester or someone who do not think the other party is all about evil.
 
Perotista said:
No, the idea was the House would represent the people and the senate the states. I know the 17th amendment probably did away with the senate representing the state giving the people voting power of electing their senators instead of the state legislatures appointing them.But think of this with just a president and the house. Go back to 2009 when the presidency and the house were both Democratic, one party control, no checks on what that one party could do. The Democrats could have passed massive tax increases on all, passed health care on all, Gun control on all, they could have passed any and all of their agenda. With one party control, lets say they passed a bunch of far left extreme legislation which all became law.

now in 2012 lets say the republicans took the house and the presidency, they didn't like what the democrats had just passed. So they repealed all tax increases and set a flat tax at 5% on all, they repealed all health care laws, all gun control laws, and anything else they didn't like and then proceeded with their own agenda, passing far right wing stuff. Then 4 year hence, the Democrats regained power and they inturn repeal everything the Republicans did and re-passed and enacted what ever they wanted. Now the nations goes through these wild swings, from one side to the other, no middle ground what so ever. No even keel.

The senate brings about an equilibrium. With its filbuster to protect minority party rights it prevents these wild swings. Like the senate or not, it helps keeps things and laws on a more even keel, more in the middle than what having no senate would do. It is not the senate that is broke, it is the elected officials who reside there. Politics is the art of the possible, politics is about compromise, give and take, working with the other party for the good of the country. Sure each party can have their political agendas, but be willing to take a couple of steps back by giving something to the other party in order to take three steps forward by taking something from the other party.

Head strong leaders in the senate of my way or the highway mental frame is why so much ruckus and gridlock is going on. think back to when Dole and Mitchell were the leaders, not that old go back to Dashle and Lott. Differences were worked out and government worked. Take away Reid and McConnell, replace them with maybe a Alexander and Manchin, or a Collins and Tester or someone who do not think the other party is all about evil.
Click to expand...

one could always hope for a senate majority leader like Mike Mansfield.
 
Gaius46 said:
No. Courts tinkering with the legislative process is a bad thing no matter how laudable the goal.
Click to expand...

agreed, every man can vote his conscience apart from the color of his skin. I have never understood that type of court ruling.
 
Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

very true; voters will have to demand it. Unfortunately, most don't recognize that gerrymandering is the root of the problem.
 
ecofarm said:
Now you're just spewing platitudes in the justification of banning groups from having a voice in their authority. Do you know Kim?
Click to expand...

The difference between this post and mine that is that I cited specific examples of things that have actually happened that have been harmful to our country.

Banks have tried to use their abundant political influence to outlaw or regulate credit unions specifically because their pro-consumerist business model endangers the future of their anti-consumerist practices within the financing industry.

That is not a platitude, it is a fact, and by itself justifies my argument that lobbyists aren't worth the trouble their organizations bring. Information can be obtained through alternative means. As if I didn't have thirty years of other examples.
 
Morality Games said:
Information can be obtained through alternative means.
Click to expand...

No, it cannot. In order for all perspectives to be considered in a decision, the people must be free to address their government.
 
ecofarm said:
No, it cannot. In order for all perspectives to be considered in a decision, the people must be free to address their government.
Click to expand...

They must be given the opportunity to address their government, nothing more.
 
Perotista said:
No, the idea was the House would represent the people and the senate the states. I know the 17th amendment probably did away with the senate representing the state giving the people voting power of electing their senators instead of the state legislatures appointing them.But think of this with just a president and the house. Go back to 2009 when the presidency and the house were both Democratic, one party control, no checks on what that one party could do. The Democrats could have passed massive tax increases on all, passed health care on all, Gun control on all, they could have passed any and all of their agenda. With one party control, lets say they passed a bunch of far left extreme legislation which all became law.

now in 2012 lets say the republicans took the house and the presidency, they didn't like what the democrats had just passed. So they repealed all tax increases and set a flat tax at 5% on all, they repealed all health care laws, all gun control laws, and anything else they didn't like and then proceeded with their own agenda, passing far right wing stuff. Then 4 year hence, the Democrats regained power and they inturn repeal everything the Republicans did and re-passed and enacted what ever they wanted. Now the nations goes through these wild swings, from one side to the other, no middle ground what so ever. No even keel.

The senate brings about an equilibrium. With its filbuster to protect minority party rights it prevents these wild swings. Like the senate or not, it helps keeps things and laws on a more even keel, more in the middle than what having no senate would do. It is not the senate that is broke, it is the elected officials who reside there. Politics is the art of the possible, politics is about compromise, give and take, working with the other party for the good of the country. Sure each party can have their political agendas, but be willing to take a couple of steps back by giving something to the other party in order to take three steps forward by taking something from the other party.

Head strong leaders in the senate of my way or the highway mental frame is why so much ruckus and gridlock is going on. think back to when Dole and Mitchell were the leaders, not that old go back to Dashle and Lott. Differences were worked out and government worked. Take away Reid and McConnell, replace them with maybe a Alexander and Manchin, or a Collins and Tester or someone who do not think the other party is all about evil.
Click to expand...

:agree: And once again, an excellent well presented post! :thumbs:
 
ecofarm said:
That's called lobbying.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.

Lobbying requires a lot of money because you have to employ large organizations of analysts and negotiators to continually hammer away and acquire influence with blocs of Congress in order to obtain their loyalty whether your cause merits it or not. It's a full time job and involves no real virtue or concern for the public good, the sort of emotions "concerned citizens" are supposed to have when they address the government.

If the government had a specific forum that was open for a set amount of time and otherwise regulated interaction between political agents and organizations, then instead of seeing middlemen we would see the people behind them come and give their take on the effects of a given policy on their industry. There would be no need for large organizations or money, because there would be no application for them. Not enough access in too little time.

Inasmuch as it is a type of representation, lobbying is a way for organizations to compensate for their lack of merit (that is, their lack of usefulness to the republic and its people) with goods and services desirable to politicians.
 
jonny5 said:
Whats the purpose of a district?
Click to expand...

to divide the state up into manageable portions which can each send representatives to the federal government.

the intended purpose is not to create republican or democrat strongholds. using only population data to draw the districts will allow more competition, and the districts will be largely less secure.
 
I think the senate is functioning a lot better than the house. You can't gerrymander a whole state the way you can a district. I think gerrymandering, the phenomenon of primary-ing out more moderate candidates, and tremendous private campaign funding are the biggest problems. Only the last is also a problem in senate.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
one could always hope for a senate majority leader like Mike Mansfield.
Click to expand...

I didn't mention him as I figured most people on this site don't go back that far or remember who he was. Yes Mike Mansfield and Everett Dirksen, those two would make the senate work even today.
 
Paschendale said:
I think the senate is functioning a lot better than the house. You can't gerrymander a whole state the way you can a district. I think gerrymandering, the phenomenon of primary-ing out more moderate candidates, and tremendous private campaign funding are the biggest problems. Only the last is also a problem in senate.
Click to expand...

As my signature lines states: Gerrymandering is a system where Representatives choose their voters instead of the voters choosing their Representatives. Gerrymandering should be made illegal. Curses on Elridge Gerry.
 
polgara said:
:agree: And once again, an excellent well presented post! :thumbs:
Click to expand...

the same can be said of the filibuster, in a way it prevents government from running amok with knee jerk legislation.
 
Absolutely not. Now if you said you wanted to amend the Constitution to eliminate political parties, lobbyists and the like, I'd be all for that.
 
joko104 said:
Having two branches of Congress increasingly brings the government to a gridlock. The Senate was created when the federal government was going to have virtually no power for which each state was a quasi-independent country joining with others primarily for military defense. But that all ended with the Civil War and is ancient history.

Why should the people and state of Wyoming have 7000% more political power than a Californian and California? Wyoming doesn't contribute 7000% more to the good of the nation. Shouldn't it be one-person-one-vote, rather than 1 vote for a California and 70 votes for a someone who votes in Wyoming? This also leads to massive out-of-state-money being thrown into low population states. The state of Wyoming and many other states have a total population that is only a fraction of just a major American city. I see no justification for that anymore.

I think the Constitution should be amended to eliminate the Senate. This is not limited to the current Congressional mess at all. Rather, it is a growing problem overall and a serious question of the fairness of democracy/republic form of government.

Your opinion?
Click to expand...
Boy I WISH Wyoming had 70 votes in the Senate. It'd certainly inject the appropriate amount of sanity into that [currently] insanely run body.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom