Thread: An examination of delegate allocation

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

Well, even with the current senate, it would hardly have as many problems as it has if they had never changed the filibuster rule. The rule is absurd how it is written today. At least in the past, it didn't prevent bills from being passed, it just made it take a day or two, but still it wasn't like today's "you need a unified* 60 vote majority to pass anything" shit.

*unified, because as we saw when the democrats got 60 seats in the senate, if you don't have everyone voting the party line you won't have enough votes to break a filibuster.

Yes, I do agree that the filibuster has been totally abused and warped into something it was never intended to be, and more would get done, but that doesn't change the undemocratic nature of the Senate. That's really why I want to get rid of it in its current form.

Originally Posted by AetheLove

Better get to work.

It took the UK more than 600 years to deprecate Lords (with a brief stint where Oliver deprecated them pretty radically); and that's just deprecated, not abolished.

The end of the Senate would go a long way to ending States. Without the Senate, we might pretty quickly turn into United America.

Cheers,


AetheLove

Oh, I know it won't be easy. The Senators themselves have no intention of ever giving up their power.

And if that's what happens if we get rid of the current Senate, so be it. This Senate now bears little resemblance to the one the founders had made. If we are passing national laws that affect everyone, we should have a more equal system of representation. The disparity between the largest state and smallest state has grown so much that they both get two Senators is absurd. Do you really want 100 people deciding what's best for over 300 million?!

Originally Posted by Fovezer

And if that's what happens if we get rid of the current Senate, so be it. This Senate now bears little resemblance to the one the founders had made. If we are passing national laws that affect everyone, we should have a more equal system of representation. The disparity between the largest state and smallest state has grown so much that they both get two Senators is absurd. Do you really want 100 people deciding what's best for over 300 million?!

This sounds like you want the biggest states (population=majority) to have the biggest vote. How is that "a more equal system of representation"? Can you not see the correlation between what might happen if this is allowed, and what has happened to the "minority" of people by the current system. I sense our politicians in those bigger states would turn the smaller states into their boy toys. Reform, or serious change, is in order, but getting rid of the senate completely or allowing the biggest states to decide the fate of the smaller states sounds like a very bad idea to me.

Originally Posted by Bubbasam

This sounds like you want the biggest states (population=majority) to have the biggest vote. How is that "a more equal system of representation"? Can you not see the correlation between what might happen if this is allowed, and what has happened to the "minority" of people by the current system. I sense our politicians in those bigger states would turn the smaller states into their boy toys. Reform, or serious change, is in order, but getting rid of the senate completely or allowing the biggest states to decide the fate of the smaller states sounds like a very bad idea to me.

Not quite. I don't support giving states a set number of Senators. The Senate we have today is a bastardization of the Senate the Founders set up. Not like their Senate was much better, but it's not the same Senate we see today. I want to see EVERY person have a chance at some representation at the national level. If you are a liberal living in an area with a Republican Rep., two Republican Senators, and a state that voted Republican, (and vice versa) you literally have no representation in Congress. None. What I'd like to see the Senate be proportionally based on national party vote, with any party >5% gaining seats. So when you got your ballot, you'd vote for a Rep for your district and the party you want to represent you in the Senate. This would ensure that if your party got at least over 5%, you'd be represented at least in some fashion.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Oh, I know it won't be easy. The Senators themselves have no intention of ever giving up their power.

And if that's what happens if we get rid of the current Senate, so be it. This Senate now bears little resemblance to the one the founders had made. If we are passing national laws that affect everyone, we should have a more equal system of representation. The disparity between the largest state and smallest state has grown so much that they both get two Senators is absurd. Do you really want 100 people deciding what's best for over 300 million?!

Do you want the residents of New York, California, Texas, and Florida deciding what's best for everyone who lives in ID, MT, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, MN, IA, and WI?

How about Texas and California saying "Yeah, fuck it, we should strip-mine West Virginia. Coal is cheap and hillbillies are dumb."

I'm not unsympathetic to the situation, but I'm not sure it's all downside.

Cheers,


AetheLove

Originally Posted by AetheLove

Do you want the residents of New York, California, Texas, and Florida deciding what's best for everyone who lives in ID, MT, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, MN, IA, and WI?

How about Texas and California saying "Yeah, fuck it, we should strip-mine West Virginia. Coal is cheap and hillbillies are dumb."

I'm not unsympathetic to the situation, but I'm not sure it's all downside.

Cheers,


AetheLove

See my above post.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

See my above post.

Ya, sequencing issues.

Read your idea. So... that's like a House of Representatives and a Parliamentary Proportional Senate?

So, after the proportional votes are counted, do the respective parties just get to decide who fills the positions? It sounds like the Senate vote is just a vote for whichever party you like.

Cheers,


AetheLove

The system is fine its the players that fucked up the game.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Not quite. I don't support giving states a set number of Senators. The Senate we have today is a bastardization of the Senate the Founders set up. Not like their Senate was much better, but it's not the same Senate we see today. I want to see EVERY person have a chance at some representation at the national level. If you are a liberal living in an area with a Republican Rep., two Republican Senators, and a state that voted Republican, (and vice versa) you literally have no representation in Congress. None. What I'd like to see the Senate be proportionally based on national party vote, with any party >5% gaining seats. So when you got your ballot, you'd vote for a Rep for your district and the party you want to represent you in the Senate. This would ensure that if your party got at least over 5%, you'd be represented at least in some fashion.

Got it. I remember you talking about this in another post. It sounds like what would happen is, with a two party system, we would simply have 1 repub and 1 dem in each state. Unless you are saying the bigger states get more senators based on their population representation (sounds like conjunction junction all over again). There again I fear for the smaller states not having as much of a say (and I think this is what you are wanting) and being used in a not so nice way.

Originally Posted by Bubbasam

Got it. I remember you talking about this in another post. It sounds like what would happen is, with a two party system, we would simply have 1 repub and 1 dem in each state. Unless you are saying the bigger states get more senators based on their population representation (sounds like conjunction junction all over again). There again I fear for the smaller states not having as much of a say (and I think this is what you are wanting) and being used in a not so nice way.

Are you suggesting rhode island would get butt raped?