It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate is Unfair, MUST REFORM.

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
The upper house of US congress was a mechanism of compromise to ensure that the small states in the original union would maintain sovereignty.

Two members are to be elected from each state....

Now, with 50 states, we have a Senate of 100 members...

So, the problem is that citizens from more populous states are under represented at the federal level.

Take California and New York, and their combined population of 57,157,109 and their 4 representatives,

and compare to the 20 representatives given to Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island which combined in population is less than one fifth of NY and Cali...

There must be a way to construct the government which allows for better equality while still protecting a state's sovereignty.




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   


So, the problem is that citizens from more populous states are under represented at the federal level.


So let's be clear here population should determine how many senatorial votes a state can have?

Nope because the most populous states will always have more power than the states with lower population, and correct me here if I am wrong that was the idea behind the electoral college.

Equal representation regardless of population.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I agree with Neo. The current system is the best system.

Of course, when it doesn't go,the way people want, we start hearing about making changes (to The Constitution).

There are,some that feel,the same way,about The House!



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Umm no, this is at least one thing that is working as intended. If you want to make an argument that there should be more members of the House of Representatives, it would be a valid point to make considering that it is far smaller than it really should be. But that is a wholly different conversation.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I'm all for Senate reform... just not in-line with your thoughts.

Let's ban professional lobbyists and raise ethics standards. Then, once we get honest Senators... we can start discussing whether or not their voter blocks are balanced out or not...

~Heff



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by MassOccurs
There must be a way to construct the government which allows for better equality while still protecting a state's sovereignty.


That would be the House of Representatives, which is in charge of the budget and meets your criteria. The Senate was originally designed to represent the states alone, as individual entities, so that one state like Virginia did not overwhelm another state like Rhode Island, simply becaus ethey had a greater population. The idea was that the states were soverign. Of course, that all changed with the amendment to allow senators to be directly elected by the people, so the states lost power and have been losing it steadily ever since.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

I'm all for Senate reform... just not in-line with your thoughts.

Let's ban professional lobbyists and raise ethics standards. Then, once we get honest Senators... we can start discussing whether or not their voter blocks are balanced out or not...

~Heff


The problem with congress are the politicians,career ones hope that reformation would include term limits, statesman?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Agreed fully. Term limits are a huge issue in politics. Too many folks go from college to grave in so-called "public service" leaving behind little or no legacy at all.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
the problem with the senate is that senators are elected, instead of appointed by state legislatures, like it was intended to be. they were to represent the state.
they don't do much representing anymore.
17th amendment.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Personally I want publicly funded campaigns. An elimination of pay to play politics aka lobbying. And to instate term limits on both houses of Congress. And probably extending the Presidential term to 5 or 6 years, but that is negotiable.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ctdannyd
I agree with Neo. The current system is the best system.

Of course, when it doesn't go,the way people want, we start hearing about making changes (to The Constitution).

There are,some that feel,the same way,about The House!


Regardless the system... it should be popular vote... We need to let people more involved in the decision making... representatives should be required to bring things to vote, especially critical things... their JOB is to represent their area... they often do NOT



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I also think that campaigns should not allow any external funding... all campaigns should be paid for equally by the the taxpayers.. NO FUNDS by any third party whatsoever....

If we can bail out banks, we can fund a fair election.. but you won't find either of the two parties supporting campaign reform like that.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I don't see why the states need their own house in the federal legislature at all...

The federal government should be a representative of the citizens, not the states.

Rewrite the rules so that it is clear what the federal government can and can't do at local levels. Votes for federal bills shouldn't be bought with grants for the rep's district.

The federal government as a whole should be redefined and limits placed on what it can legislate, then districts redrawn to provide equality. There's no reason districts at the federal level need to be based on state borders.

How about an upper house of a lower number, say 15, elected to terms of ten years. Make the future a priority instead of constant election cycles.

There's no reason bicameralism needs to be set in stone, either. We could have three legislative bodies, or even have specialized reps in areas of economics, defense, education, health. Instead of so many appointments in departments expand the electoral system all together....

Also add some type of national referendum option.
edit on 16-8-2012 by MassOccurs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
read the constitution people.

and it's amendments.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bjax9er
 


Right, I have read the constitution, though not in a few years...

And I'm convinced that the citizens of America today could produce a superior document if we would accept the challenge. The process itself would be politically invigorating and spark a massive increase in societal interest, which we need badly...

We wouldn't just toss out all of the good ideas! We'd keep the good ideas that still apply and strengthen them with the wisdom provided by experience and a better acquaintance of the 21st century than the founders had.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MassOccurs
 


No we could not because the key ingredient in getting it drafted, COMPROMISE. Is now a vulgar and dirty word and all the convention delegates would be gunning each other down in the streets because they are right and everyone else is wrong.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


So you're saying a better document is impossible because of low ethics...

There's nothing saying it would be the politicians sitting in the delegation, though inevitably some would. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have pretty good reputations ethically....

Any thoughts on specific measures that could raise the ethical standard nation wide? And if the environment were less contentious would you consider a look at drafting a new Constitution?

Also, if given the opportunity to go down in history as a member of a 21st century constitutional convention, they'd all want to get it done.

edit on 16-8-2012 by MassOccurs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
The House is supposed to be The People's representation on the Federal level.

The Senate is supposed to be The State's representation on the Federal level.

I don't understand the need to reform, or how anything is unfair.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SpectreDC
 


I guess I might disagree with the whole idea of a state needing to represent itself at the federal level, or it least not to the extent they currently are allowed. A bill has to pass both the Senate and House, right? And these bills are applied nationally, so small states have disproportional influence on federal laws.

I think government should be more localized...states having sovereignty. But the legislation being adapted at the federal level should be aimed at citizens, not states, who are all equal as Americans.


During the founding, before the states were unified, there was a serious possibility that a large one would overtake the small ones. Now that America is more cohesive, the federal government should be equalized.

If a bill passes the house, why should Vermont have the same influence as New York as to whether or not it becomes law?


edit on 17-8-2012 by MassOccurs because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-8-2012 by MassOccurs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by MassOccurs
 


It's the electric age. Our government was organized when horses were the preferred manner of travel. We really don't need representatives voting for us any longer. Let them write the bills, but don't let them vote. It's time for direct citizen voting on national policy on a line item basis.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join