- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What is your argument for two senators per state in modern times?
Posted on 7/6/22 at 6:54 am to baybeefeetz
Posted on 7/6/22 at 6:54 am to baybeefeetz
Ultimately it serves to maintain peace among states. That is, the "big" states would be unceremoniously invaded and crushed when they naturally exercised their absolute power over the "small" states. Our founders were, if nothing else, outstanding students of the human condition.
0
Posted on 7/6/22 at 6:58 am to baybeefeetz
Each state gets two senators and each state gets representatives based on population. It's worked this way for a long time, but now things are going the way Leftists and Democrats think they should go they want to get rid of this practice to suit their agenda.
How is this "undemocratic?:
"Somebody" is an idiot.
quote:
How about now? Does the undemocratic nature of the two senators serve a greater purpose in this day and age?
How is this "undemocratic?:
quote:
Somebody argued against two senators to me yesterday, and I’m wondering what y’all think.
"Somebody" is an idiot.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 7:01 am to baybeefeetz
Leftists are OK with LA, NY, & Chicago enforcing mob rule on the rest of the country.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 7:12 am to mauser
quote:In 1789, I suspect that a big part of it was that 13 guys would look more like a committee/cabal than like a legislative assembly
Why not one senator per state?
Now? If the Senate were still appointive, the extra folks don’t serve much of a purpose. Elected, you do theoretically get more diverse representation, plus more turnover with a six-year term.
This post was edited on 7/6/22 at 7:16 am
Posted on 7/6/22 at 7:20 am to baybeefeetz
Without it, you have people in big shitty concrete jungles making decisions for people that live in rural green spaces. And they have no idea what life is like outside of the cities.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 7:27 am to baybeefeetz
It is the same principal as the electoral college. It is supposed to help all parts of the nation be protected from a few larger populated parts of the nation.
IMHO, there isn't enough of this type protection.
IMHO, there isn't enough of this type protection.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 7:32 am to Landmass
quote:Until the 1970s, Texas had a House based upon population and a Senate based upon geographic districts, assuring that rural Texans had a voice in state government.
Without it, you have people in big shitty concrete jungles making decisions for people that live in rural green spaces. And they have no idea what life is like outside of the cities.
Then some genius decided to file suit under the voting rights act, and the feds said that we had to change our system and allow the cities to dominate the countryside. As far as legislative assemblies go, apparently that which is good for the goose (the feds) is NOT good for the gander (Texas).
I love Texas, but it would be a still-better place today, if we were still using OUR chosen Senatorial system.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 7:37 am to baybeefeetz
quote:
Does the undemocratic nature of the two senators serve a greater purpose in this day and age?
Yes.
There is a functional misunderstanding (or desire, however you want to view it) by many authoritarians who see the US as a country alone. They completely ignore the fact that the US is a federation of powerful states working in conjunction with a federal system (of varying power depending on the year and area).
When you understand (or accept) the reality of our federation, then you understand why the Senate is important to that system. It's "undemocratic" by design to avoid mob rule and disruptive mass changes in our government.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 7:39 am to MMauler
quote:
More than half the states in the country would secede if they were forced to live under the deranged and demented morality of California and New York.
Are we not still being forced to live under the filths rules?
Posted on 7/6/22 at 7:51 am to jp4lsu
quote:
Modern times" is a reason that leftist use to trash the constitution. The leftist claim it is a "living breathing document"......No it is not
The constitution was designed to protect us from these radical idiots telling us it’s a living breathing document that requires adaptation to the changing times.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 7:52 am to baybeefeetz
Someone is trying to do an endrun in order to tackle the Electoral College.
The left is always looking for reasons to start the 2nd Civil War.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 8:01 am to baybeefeetz
quote:
Does the undemocratic nature of the two senators serve a greater purpose in this day and age?
Yep. That greater purpose is a republican form of government. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 8:04 am to baybeefeetz
A better question, why do we have term limits for the President and not for the other branches? The constitution is based on 3 equal branches. We need term limits for everybody!!!
Posted on 7/6/22 at 8:06 am to tarzana
Now do California
Posted on 7/6/22 at 8:07 am to tarzana
You can’t name one radical position Hawley has. You twit.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 8:11 am to baybeefeetz
Same as 1789
Each state gets equal representation regardless of its population size, because senators represent the State itself, despite the fact that Woodrow Wilson was a Marxist who thought that changing it to a popular vote was a good idea.
Your idea that senators represent the individual citizens of any state is based on a fallacy and fundamental misunderstanding of how our government was designed to work. Those ppl are in the HR and are a direct reflection of the state’s population.
Each state gets equal representation regardless of its population size, because senators represent the State itself, despite the fact that Woodrow Wilson was a Marxist who thought that changing it to a popular vote was a good idea.
Your idea that senators represent the individual citizens of any state is based on a fallacy and fundamental misunderstanding of how our government was designed to work. Those ppl are in the HR and are a direct reflection of the state’s population.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 8:15 am to baybeefeetz
The only thing that needs to change for house and senate is term limits. That’s it.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 8:19 am to baybeefeetz
The state of education would be a prime example of negative effects of federal rule over state/local rule.
This is why the senate has two electors per state regardless of population unlike the house where electors are divided based on population representation.
Because most alabamaians don’t want to live like californians.
This is why the senate has two electors per state regardless of population unlike the house where electors are divided based on population representation.
Because most alabamaians don’t want to live like californians.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 8:26 am to baybeefeetz
quote:
Part of me thinks that repealing the 17th could solve a lot of our problems.
Repeal the 17th & 19th , and we’re shittin’ in high cotton
Posted on 7/6/22 at 8:42 am to Tmo Sabe
quote:
James Madison. Minority rights. Republicanism. Democracy is tyranny of the majority.
^^^^^ Perfect response. A little history and research for ignorant folks can go a long way.
Page 2 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News