blueliner7
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2017
- Messages
- 231
- Reaction score
- 69
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Then why have a bicameral legislature at all?
What difference does it make?
Then why have a bicameral legislature at all?
What difference does it make?
Because senators provide states equal representation regardless of population.
Outside of a hardcore small group of right wingers, this is NOT at all controversial. They hate the 17th because it brings government closer to the people and they despise the vote of the people because they know they are a small minority whose radical ideas and whack job agenda goes nowhere with the people against them.
You didn't answer my question. Why 6 years for Senators and only 2 for House members?
And that won't happen if they serve 2 year terms?
It's called the Constitution ...
Popular election wasn't originally in the Constitution, hence the thread.
Because the way our system of elections work, only 1/3 of the senate is up for reelection every election year, while the entire house is up for election every 2 years.
Popular election wasn't originally in the Constitution, hence the thread.
Still not an answer. Why not every 2 years for all Senators? If it's all about the people and all that jazz.
I responded to your complaints about the 6-year term of Senators, certainly not part of the thread OP ...
What difference does it make?
Well, if it makes no difference (to you) then why not simply skip the expense and remove the Senate entirely?
The idea was to give even smaller (based on population) states a chance to matter as much as larger states. Obviously, if any state votes both yes and no on a given issue then they may as well have had their Senators just stay home.
Popular election wasn't originally in the Constitution, hence the thread.
Women voting wasn't originally in The Constitution either. Neither was the 16th, another whipping boy for Conservatices ...
Well, if it makes no difference (to you) then why not simply skip the expense and remove the Senate entirely?
The idea was to give even smaller (based on population) states a chance to matter as much as larger states. Obviously, if any state votes both yes and no on a given issue then they may as well have had their Senators just stay home.
The thread isn't about suffrage.
Actually, you responded to neither one.
The thread isn't about a 6-year term for Senators, your initial diversion ...
Because the way our system of elections work, only 1/3 of the senate is up for reelection every election year, while the entire house is up for election every 2 years.
Not a diversion, a question. And you ignored the first point I made. Can I trust you to accurately repeat it or do I have to repeat it myself?
Such as both GOP Senators in Iowa, Nebraska and Arizona voting against Harvey relief because Ryan and McConnell tied it to the debt ceiling ...
Ah yes, the old "I have principles so long as I know that they won't affect the outcome or shutdown the almighty government" way of voting.