• 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!

Should the Senate be Eliminated

Samwise said:
39.5 million Californians and 0.6 million Vermonters should have the same representation in the Senate?
Click to expand...

Make your case and I will read it.
 
TheParser said:
In the coming decades, the liberals will probably abolish the Electoral College and the Senate.

Presidents will be elected by popular vote, and the House will be the sole legislative branch.

Like it or not, the future belongs to the liberals.

Those Americans who do not like it will have to grin and bear it or emigrate.
Click to expand...

What liberals? There is no liberal movement in this country. The liberal American Democratic Party has been replaced by the corporate super rich with a progressive (fascist) International Democratic Party. The agenda and goals of the new Democratic Fascist Party are nearly diametrically opposite of liberalism.

The Senate will not be eliminated and presidential elections will not be by popular vote.

The battle isn't even between Republicans and Democrats. It is between democracy and administrative government, which is trying to eliminate democracy to continue creating a federal police state system of government.
 
Samwise said:
39.5 million Californians and 0.6 million Vermonters should have the same representation in the Senate?
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly.

Democratic rule - ie mob rule - had never existed as a form of government. The Founders did NOT want a centralized Federal government and did NOT want direct election mob rule.

The system they designed was based upon the country being a union of states that were largely autonomous. The reason for the Senate and the electoral college is exactly so that Californians can not control the people and government of Vermont.

But it is clear that the Democratic Party and certainly the super rich corporations who want to control all of earth truly HATE diversity. Totally. They demand that everyone in every state, every city and town - you and I - all are required to act and be 100% identical. There can be NO regional differences, no people can decide the rules and laws they want for their community.

Rather, everyone and everywhere must be controlled by an all-powerful federal fascist police state. For this, all individuality and all diversity must be totally crushed. This includes making all state and local government merely subdivisions of the federal government.

Why this won't happen is because state governments will not agree to eliminate themselves, which is what such a constitutional amendment would take. It is unlikely Vermont's legislature would vote that Californian's should control and steal whatever they want from their state.
 
cpwill said:
You appear to have mis-read. Nowhere did I state that in our current system of government power is equally distributed among all members of the population :).
Click to expand...

If power is centralized (which it is), then it doesn’t “flow from the rules to the rulers”. The people just play an (increasingly nominal) procedural role in the delegation of power.
 
haymarket said:
Make your case and I will read it.
Click to expand...

Case? What case? I'm asking you whether you are okay with 39.5 million Californians and 0.6 million Vermonters having the same representation in the Senate.
 
Samwise said:
Case? What case? I'm asking you whether you are okay with 39.5 million Californians and 0.6 million Vermonters having the same representation in the Senate.
Click to expand...

I will be happy to examine your position that it should not be if you simply provide the case for it.

I myself have given you my position. Do you disagree with it?
 
joko104 said:
Yes, exactly.

Democratic rule - ie mob rule - had never existed as a form of government. The Founders did NOT want a centralized Federal government and did NOT want direct election mob rule.

The system they designed was based upon the country being a union of states that were largely autonomous. The reason for the Senate and the electoral college is exactly so that Californians can not control the people and government of Vermont.

But it is clear that the Democratic Party and certainly the super rich corporations who want to control all of earth truly HATE diversity. Totally. They demand that everyone in every state, every city and town - you and I - all are required to act and be 100% identical. There can be NO regional differences, no people can decide the rules and laws they want for their community.

Rather, everyone and everywhere must be controlled by an all-powerful federal fascist police state. For this, all individuality and all diversity must be totally crushed. This includes making all state and local government merely subdivisions of the federal government.

Why this won't happen is because state governments will not agree to eliminate themselves, which is what such a constitutional amendment would take. It is unlikely Vermont's legislature would vote that Californian's should control and steal whatever they want from their state.
Click to expand...

The poster I was conversing with was expressing his opinion that the system of choosing the president was unfair. So I started this thread to solicit his opinion on the fairness or unfairness of the Senate.
 
haymarket said:
I will be happy to examine your position that it should not be if you simply provide the case for it.

I myself have given you my position. Do you disagree with it?
Click to expand...

I don't have a position regarding the Senate.

What was your position regarding the fairness of the Senate?
 
Samwise said:
I don't have a position regarding the Senate.

What was your position regarding the fairness of the Senate?
Click to expand...

Then why would you start a thread if you do not have a position?
 
haymarket said:
Then why would you start a thread if you do not have a position?
Click to expand...

Because I asked your opinion and you told me to start a thread.

So what's your position regarding the fairness of the Senate?
 
Samwise said:
Because I asked your opinion and you told me to start a thread.

So what's your position regarding the fairness of the Senate?
Click to expand...

And I gave you my opinion answering a firm NO to the question in the OP.
 
haymarket said:
And I gave you my opinion.
Click to expand...

Right. But if you consider it fair that 39.5 million Californians and 0.6 million Vermonters both get 2 legislative votes in the Senate, how do you square this with your opinion that it's unfair that Vermont gets more electors per person than California does? That seems inconsistent.
 
TheParser said:
In the coming decades, the liberals will probably abolish the Electoral College and the Senate.

Presidents will be elected by popular vote, and the House will be the sole legislative branch.

Like it or not, the future belongs to the liberals.

Those Americans who do not like it will have to grin and bear it or emigrate.
Click to expand...

Correction: Democrats are not liberals. Nothing they do should encourage any of us to claim they are liberal.

Why? They have come close to being our rulers by way of them passing laws.

When Republicans take over, the deep moans and passionate sighs we are removing laws comes directly from the gaping jaws of the Democrats. They crave laws.
 
Samwise said:
Right. But if you consider it fair that 39.5 million Californians and 0.6 million Vermonters both get 2 legislative votes in the Senate, how do you square this with your opinion that it's unfair that Vermont gets more electors per person than California does? That seems inconsistent.
Click to expand...

They are two different things.
 
haymarket said:
They are two different things.
Click to expand...

Obviously. But, in both cases, people of one state have less representation than people in another state. Are you in favor of equal representation or not?
 
Samwise said:
Obviously. But, in both cases, people of one state have less representation than people in another state. Are you in favor of equal representation or not?
Click to expand...

For what purpose?
 
Samwise said:
For the purpose of governing. Are you in favor of equal representation or not?
Click to expand...

Electing a President is not part of governing. The Senate is. Those are two very different things.

I want each citizens vote for president to be of the same value and none count any more than any other citizens vote. The EC violates that.
 
haymarket said:
Electing a President is not part of governing. The Senate is. Those are two very different things.

I want each citizens vote for president to be of the same value and none count any more than any other citizens vote. The EC violates that.
Click to expand...

The government is composed of three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. I find it odd that you have two separate standards for the executive and the legislature. Can you explain why?
 
Samwise said:
The government is composed of three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. I find it odd that you have two separate standards for the executive and the legislature. Can you explain why?
Click to expand...

I don't. As I explained to you these are two different things. Why are you unable to comprehend that fact?
 
haymarket said:
I don't. As I explained to you these are two different things. Why are you unable to comprehend that fact?
Click to expand...

And yet you're fine with a voter in Vermont having 65 times the legislative power as a voter in California?
 
Individual said:
Return the "United State of America" to being the "United States of America"?
That would require repealing the 17th amendment.
I've suggested that many times, along with repealing the 16th amendment.
Our form of government fundamentally changed in 1913 with dire and growing consequences for each successive generation to contend with.
Click to expand...

You mean dire consequences like global ascendancy and dominance? Right wing regression - repeal your way to a former glorious greatness that wasn't.
 
Jonsa said:
You mean dire consequences like global ascendancy and dominance? Right wing regression - repeal your way to a former glorious greatness that wasn't.
Click to expand...

No, not even close.
 
Samwise said:
And yet you're fine with a voter in Vermont having 65 times the legislative power as a voter in California?
Click to expand...

So that is the reason you want to abolish the Senate?
 
haymarket said:
So that is the reason you want to abolish the Senate?
Click to expand...

I don't want to abolish the senate. Not sure what gave you that idea.

So you're okay with a voter in Vermont having 65 times the legislative power as a voter in California?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom