- 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 8:43 am to baybeefeetz
Posted on 7/6/22 at 8:43 am to baybeefeetz
The reason is the same today as it was then. We would never have had a union if the big states controlled the government. Simple as that. And that hasn't changed one bit from inception.
0
Posted on 7/6/22 at 8:47 am to jm_1776
Of all the shite that the founders setup, the 17th amendment has got to be the worst violation of their original intent. It amazes me that a state can have a majority conservative legislature (like West Virginia) and have one republican and one democrat senators who are constantly voting against each other. The Senators should be receiving directions from the State on how to vote, not their party.
The 17th amendment ensured that States rights are not represented in Congress.
The 17th amendment ensured that States rights are not represented in Congress.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 8:53 am to Topisawtiger
quote:
What Timo said.
And of course it is undemocratic, we are not a democratic form of government. This is a representative republic.
Problem with senators is they are no longer representing the states. Therein lies the true issue.
It’s pretty interesting when pollsters ask policy questions of the citizenry and the results of the poll are not congruent with what their elected politicians are doing on the citizenry’s behalf…..it’s almost like the politicians are being influenced….by lobbyists…lol!
Posted on 7/6/22 at 8:55 am to saints5021
quote:Texas had John Tower long before the GOP got control of the legislature.
It amazes me that a state can have a majority conservative legislature (like West Virginia) and have one republican and one democrat senators who are constantly voting against each other.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 8:56 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.
Or endless civil war with smaller states invading larger states to gain territory and population.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 8:56 am to baybeefeetz
quote:
Does the undemocratic nature of the two senators serve a greater purpose in this day and age?
Majority rule. Minority rights.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 9:14 am to baybeefeetz
quote:
What is your argument for two senators per state in modern times?
You mean other than (1) the Constitution of the United States of America and (2) the fact we are a republic of individual states?
Posted on 7/6/22 at 9:15 am to jp4lsu
Modern times - population variances are huge. At the time of the Constitution, the largest state's population was about 11 times the population of the smallest. Now it's 70 times.
There is obviously tension between the ideas of democracy and the idea of independent states rights.
IF I were arguing, the only real argument is the flat out democracy concern, and as someone pointed out,there is a reason for the set up.
The Dems pissed away representation of the smaller states. They just have to deal with it.
I don't think you have the same issues on the Electoral College, so to me the "democracy" argument is a lot stronger if you are arguing about that forum.
There is obviously tension between the ideas of democracy and the idea of independent states rights.
IF I were arguing, the only real argument is the flat out democracy concern, and as someone pointed out,there is a reason for the set up.
The Dems pissed away representation of the smaller states. They just have to deal with it.
I don't think you have the same issues on the Electoral College, so to me the "democracy" argument is a lot stronger if you are arguing about that forum.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 9:16 am to Tmo Sabe
quote:
James Madison.
Didn’t think we needed it. He just compromised to get the constitution done.
He wrote the Virginia Plan which called for 2 representative houses. Basically saying that the most populated states were too different to ever form an alliance just to dominate the smaller states.
Which is true.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 9:23 am to burger bearcat
quote:
I would like it to go back to the old model pre-17th ammendment. Less democracy and more representation.
Basically almost every amendment past the 15th have proven to be disasters and should never have been ratified. Really the only one I’d keep is the 22nd.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 9:28 am to Darth_Vader
So you’re not a fan of set terms for the president with a line of succession, women voting, popular elections for senators.
But you do like poll taxes
But you do like poll taxes
Posted on 7/6/22 at 9:35 am to SammyTiger
quote:
So you’re not a fan of set terms for the president with a line of succession, women voting, popular elections for senators. But you do like poll taxes
Up vote for bothering to follow up on such a statement.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 9:41 am to oman
Don’t worry he’ll
Double down.
I dont get posters On here that scream about the Swamp but want state legislatures To pick senators like local politicians aren’t corrupt.
Double down.
I dont get posters On here that scream about the Swamp but want state legislatures To pick senators like local politicians aren’t corrupt.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 9:43 am to SammyTiger
It is anti democratic, which is the point. Constitutional republic vs mob rule.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 9:48 am to SammyTiger
quote:
So you’re not a fan of set terms for the president with a line of succession, women voting, popular elections for senators.
Nope
quote:
But you do like poll taxes
One of the biggest problems in this country is the notion that any idiot over the age of 18 can vote. This is insane and has lead to to where we are today. A requirement for voting should be you’ve got some skin in the game.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 9:51 am to Darth_Vader
But women who pay taxes, nah?
frick off doofus.
frick off doofus.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 9:52 am to zeebo
quote:
Constitutional republic vs mob rule.
1. Constitutional just means you have a constitution
2. Republic means it’s run by elected officials. Popular vote doesn’t make it less of a republic.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 9:53 am to jp4lsu
"Modern times" duplicating centuries old perversions. Got to love Post Modernism.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 10:01 am to baybeefeetz
So your argument is to change it without giving those “smaller” states a choice to peacefully leave the union?
Look, the left can change whatever rules and laws that fit them as long as there is a convention of states to allow those that want to to leave.
Look, the left can change whatever rules and laws that fit them as long as there is a convention of states to allow those that want to to leave.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 10:06 am to Mid Iowa Tiger
What about the states that former from US territories? They get to just walk off with what was federally owned land before we allowed them to form a state?
And people will argue constantly that this would lead to the coast ruling the middle of the country, but we have a red House all the time. It’s not uncommon.
And people will argue constantly that this would lead to the coast ruling the middle of the country, but we have a red House all the time. It’s not uncommon.
This post was edited on 7/6/22 at 10:09 am
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News