What in the name of GOD's ARSE - is the purpose of the Fucking senate ..

[TheCoxwain]

Get Rid of it or atleast make it proportional to state populations.

why the fuck should 12% of the population ( %age of population represented by Puke Bastards) have so much legislative control ...


This is not separation of power -- this is usurping of power.

[redqueen]

1. The purpose is to put a check on the people's power...

of course. Can't have the hoi polloi getting too much control of things.

[Xithras]

24. Indeed. We have to remember that Senators weren't even originally elected.

The original intent of the framers was that the people would choose representatives for the House, which is dependent on population, and the state legislatures would choose senators, guaranteeing that the will of the state governments was represented on the federal level. Direct election of senators didn't come about until 1913 when the 17th Amendment was ratified, and only occurred then because it had become incredibly corrupt, and because many state legislatures had such serious problems with partisan gridlock that some states had gone years without any senators at all (the state legislators couldn't agree on who to send).

The question that the 17th SHOULD have addressed was whether the Senate was needed at all. Unfortunately, getting an amendment through requires Senate ratification, and few senators would vote for a bill that would eliminate their own position.

[asdjrocky]

2. Jefferson didn't think we needed one.

I think it's there to be a buffer between the plebs and the wealthy. A lot of people don't realize that, then they run for the Senate, win and suddenly it starts to dawn on them.

Al Franken is just starting to see this and he's pissed.

[Taverner]

3. To make sure Jethro and the rest of Hee Haw gets a voice

[sasquatch]

4. I'm tired of the Senate too, just get rid of the damned thing completely

[MineralMan]

5. Its function is to act as a brake...

And it's still a good function. It slows legislation down by having a makeup that is not completely replaced every two years. That way, Senators aren't quite as subject to pressure from elections.

Everyone loves the idea of a unicameral legislature, but only when their party is in power. Then, everybody loves the bicameral legislature, which slows down the House from passing idiocy instead of sensibility.

Be careful what you ask for...the wingers may be in charge of the House again someday.

[Posteritatis]

16. +1

It's like that in Canada too. We're officially bicameral, but the Senate is impotent enough that we're effectively unicameral most of the time. The opposition parties howl nonstop about reforming the Senate and imposing proportional representation, but after an election where things switch around they tend to forget that.

Demanding constitutional change because it's good for your party in the short term is a fantastically bad idea.

[Mz Pip]

6. This is the price we pay

for Federalism. Equal representation for small states seemed like a good idea at the time.

Maybe it is a good idea, but right about now I'm sick and tired of Kent Conrad and Max Baucus have so much power.

[Auggie]

7. It's not the Senate. It's the people elected to it.

[grantcart]

8. we aren't going to get rid of it - that would require small states voting against themselves

And they are not going to do that.

But we should end the filibuster. It is a relatively modern invention and it is getting less democratic in time.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8683589&mesg_id=8683589

[TheKentuckian]

9. Its a worthless item to burn any energy on

because if you think we could pass a constitutional amendment to end it or emasculate it then you're smoking crack. The small states and their reps will never go along with it.

At the point you are serious about doing some substantial with the Senate you may as well put your energy into a revolution.

[asjr]

10. Maybe it is too late for me to lose

my Polyanna mindset, but I have come to believe when one runs for political office (especially U.S. government) that is the road to becoming "well off." That is the only reason for running. We are seeing it every day. Government office is not to help fellow Americans--it is a way to make money. I am more and more cynical by the day. A favorite saying of my great-great grandfather was "Them that has gets."

[AllentownJake]

15. or if you are already well off to add a title of nobility and respectability

You have to understand the founding fathers and the era they lived in. Few if any of them were populist. They were mostly pissed off because they had reached the height of their own self determination.


If the British would have opened up their political system to the colonies we would still be very much part of the British empire.

[caballero]

11. I'm not sure I'd like Florida to have 14 times as many senators as Vermont...

:shrug:

[AllentownJake]

12. To keep slavery legal

States that owned slaves had lower population than states that were free. Same reason slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person.

A lot of stuff in that document everyone worships was put in there as a compromise between the North and the South to keep the institution of slavery from being abolished by the north.

[NYC Liberal]

13. I think your real problem is with the Senate rules,

not the Senate itself.

The filibuster and all the other procedural tactics are in the rules adopted by the Senate, and they can be removed or changed usually with a majority vote.

[Oregone]

14. Its structure may of been the root cause of the Civil War too

But I thought the founding fathers were infallible

[AllentownJake]

17. It is why everytime a new state came into the Union

There was a fight over whether that state was free or slave. Can you imagine if Puerto Rico decided to join the Union right now and what a fight that would cause. Two more Senators from a blue leaning state.

In reality the Constitution was a compromise between the North and the South. Look at any electoral college map of the past 20 years and you will realize that compromise is still running things and things are just as split now as they were than.

[bridgit]

18. To make sure the people do in no way get what they want through their house

[notadmblnd]

19. to look out for those that are rich and their interests.

[LibDemAlways]

20. My daughter's US History text claims it's because

having members of one branch of Congress elected every 6 years takes the pressure off of them to have to pay attention to what the people want and thus avoid "bad decisions." WTF? Don't know if that's what the framers had in mind exactly, but it sure seems to have worked itself into a clique that, indeed, ignores the wishes of the public. The whole idea of dumbfucks from unpopulated states having so much say-so makes no sense.

[AllentownJake]

23. Rewriting History

The original reason was to prevent the North which was growing from the South in forcing abolition on the South. It is also why slaves were 3/5 of a person.

[BeyondGeography]

21. The Senate is where the country goes to die

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

22. The purpose of the senate is State's Rights.

Each state in the American Union has an equal voice.
States have an equal voice and People have an equal voice.
Senate and House.

Checks and balances...

[Vidar]

25. Our version of the House of Lords, which in England is largely ceremonial now.

[Igel]

26. It was a necessary compromise to form the Union in

the first place.

There are two ways of counting in the initial USA. There were the 13 states. Then there were the million (or however many) people. Which is more important?

Well, the 13 states weren't necessarily part of the US. They had formed a confederacy. It was dysfunctional, it was weak, and it needed teeth. But the states had rights and their own ways of doing things, and would only yield limited authority to the federal government.

It wasn't a pure democracy, it was a republic. The compromise worked out was two-fold: First, certain responsibilities would go to the federal government. Everything else would stay with the states. For example, there were a number of states with official religions: The central government would say nothing about religious matters because that would be preferential or damaging to a state. Second, as a condition of small states coming in, the two ways of counting would *both* be used. Large states would have a bigger say because they had a bigger population. But since each state, upon entering was equal, each state would have equal representation. Obviously this requires two different sets of legislators.

Zonk either compromise, and we'd be talking about the original 8 or 5 colonies. Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, and possibly another state or two simply wouldn't have wanted to cede that much authority to others.

Even now, having the Senate and the House forces a compromise, and privileges minority representation. Of course, non-parliamentarians think of "minority" just in terms of language or skin color, but rules of order, including the filibuster and things like quorum requirements--as well as the way the US Congress is set up--is to preserve minority rights, where "minority" means "those not in the majority."

It can be very frustrating when you don't respect the rights of the minority, and assume that as a member of the majority all the rights belong to you. After all, they lost the election, so they lose all their rights--except to obey their new masters. I'm sure that others said that: "They were captured, so they lose all their rights--except to obey their new masters." The only thing missing is the market. Of course, if you're in the minority you tend to see things the other way 'round.

[Umbral]

27. To get a few low population States to sign on to the Constitution,

it's usefulness ended the day after ratification.

[BlooInBloo]

28. Another non-reader of the Federalist papers, I see.

EDIT: If you ever do get around to reading something, this is also good:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/constitutional-conventions-by-digby.html

[zorahopkins]

29. More People Live In Metro Atlanta

A friend recently reminded me that more people live in Metro Atlanta than live in Montana or Delaware -- combined!

It's so unfair that the Senators from those two states have so much power!

[verges]

30. So the citizens of Montana and Delaware

should be ignored and have their interests sublimated to the people who live in Metro Atlanta? That doesn't seem quite right either.