Will Republicans take the Senate in the election?

I may want to jump on Frank's bandwagon here. Just think, there is no need to have 2 houses of Congress both populated by politicians based on a state's population. So, we could simply eliminate the Senate and just have the House. Think of all the good that would do. We would eliminate 100 Senators, most of whom are lying pieces of crap anyway. And think of the money we will save! No more salaries for Senators, their aides, their aide's aides, their secretaries, etc, etc.

This would also make it easier for lobbyists. Rather than having to buy off both Senators and House members, they would have fewer people to talk to and bribe. Think about how much easier their jobs would be.

I think that all of us should get behind this idea. We could sell it to republicans as being less government and we could sell it to democrats as more government power in the hands of fewer of them. I think it could work.

Of course, there is that pesky constitution to worry about, but hey, if we ever have another constitutional convention, I think this needs to be proposed.

CoastalRat wrote:

I may want to jump on Frank's bandwagon here. Just think, there is no need to have 2 houses of Congress both populated by politicians based on a state's population. So, we could simply eliminate the Senate and just have the House. Think of all the good that would do. We would eliminate 100 Senators, most of whom are lying pieces of crap anyway. And think of the money we will save! No more salaries for Senators, their aides, their aide's aides, their secretaries, etc, etc.

This would also make it easier for lobbyists. Rather than having to buy off both Senators and House members, they would have fewer people to talk to and bribe. Think about how much easier their jobs would be.

I think that all of us should get behind this idea. We could sell it to republicans as being less government and we could sell it to democrats as more government power in the hands of fewer of them. I think it could work.

Of course, there is that pesky constitution to worry about, but hey, if we ever have another constitutional convention, I think this needs to be proposed.

Sorry, wasn't having two congressional bodies, elected by different systems, part of the system of checks and balances the founders put in deliberately under the theory that a single legislature, like a person, can become a tyrant?

Brandon9000 wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:

I may want to jump on Frank's bandwagon here. Just think, there is no need to have 2 houses of Congress both populated by politicians based on a state's population. So, we could simply eliminate the Senate and just have the House. Think of all the good that would do. We would eliminate 100 Senators, most of whom are lying pieces of crap anyway. And think of the money we will save! No more salaries for Senators, their aides, their aide's aides, their secretaries, etc, etc.

This would also make it easier for lobbyists. Rather than having to buy off both Senators and House members, they would have fewer people to talk to and bribe. Think about how much easier their jobs would be.

I think that all of us should get behind this idea. We could sell it to republicans as being less government and we could sell it to democrats as more government power in the hands of fewer of them. I think it could work.

Of course, there is that pesky constitution to worry about, but hey, if we ever have another constitutional convention, I think this needs to be proposed.

Sorry, wasn't having two congressional bodies, elected by different systems, part of the system of checks and balances the founders put in deliberately under the theory that a single legislature, like a person, can become a tyrant?

No.

To avoid concentrating power in the hands of a few, Congress is uniquely structured. The House of Representatives is comprised of members who represent population districts within each state, while members of the Senate represent the states themselves. Additionally, every two years only a third of the Senate faces election while the entire House is subject to the vote. These overlapping layers of time, constituencies and individual members of Congress are meant to disperse legislative power.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:

I may want to jump on Frank's bandwagon here. Just think, there is no need to have 2 houses of Congress both populated by politicians based on a state's population. So, we could simply eliminate the Senate and just have the House. Think of all the good that would do. We would eliminate 100 Senators, most of whom are lying pieces of crap anyway. And think of the money we will save! No more salaries for Senators, their aides, their aide's aides, their secretaries, etc, etc.

This would also make it easier for lobbyists. Rather than having to buy off both Senators and House members, they would have fewer people to talk to and bribe. Think about how much easier their jobs would be.

I think that all of us should get behind this idea. We could sell it to republicans as being less government and we could sell it to democrats as more government power in the hands of fewer of them. I think it could work.

Of course, there is that pesky constitution to worry about, but hey, if we ever have another constitutional convention, I think this needs to be proposed.

Sorry, wasn't having two congressional bodies, elected by different systems, part of the system of checks and balances the founders put in deliberately under the theory that a single legislature, like a person, can become a tyrant?

No.

I guess you get to make up your own history.

Quote:

To avoid concentrating power in the hands of a few, Congress is uniquely structured. The House of Representatives is comprised of members who represent population districts within each state, while members of the Senate represent the states themselves. Additionally, every two years only a third of the Senate faces election while the entire House is subject to the vote. These overlapping layers of time, constituencies and individual members of Congress are meant to disperse legislative power.

http://classroom.synonym.com/importance-bicameral-legislature-congress-5237.html

My answer to your question (NO)...was correct.[/b]

I believe the right answer here is that the motives of the founders and the members of the Constitutional Convention (all appointed by the states as their representatives) were a good deal more varied than Frank acknowledges.

Our system isn't perfect, but it has done very well compared to its real alternatives. Who knows, Frank may even see fit to preserve some of it in the revolution he sees coming.

. That is why I would like to see the needed tweaks come now...before things get to the tipping point.

Quote:

. That is why I would like to see the needed tweaks come now...before things get to the tipping point.

It is already too late.

The dysfunction in this society is perpetuated by the elite, and we have no way to reel them in

Brandon9000 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:

I may want to jump on Frank's bandwagon here. Just think, there is no need to have 2 houses of Congress both populated by politicians based on a state's population. So, we could simply eliminate the Senate and just have the House. Think of all the good that would do. We would eliminate 100 Senators, most of whom are lying pieces of crap anyway. And think of the money we will save! No more salaries for Senators, their aides, their aide's aides, their secretaries, etc, etc.

This would also make it easier for lobbyists. Rather than having to buy off both Senators and House members, they would have fewer people to talk to and bribe. Think about how much easier their jobs would be.

I think that all of us should get behind this idea. We could sell it to republicans as being less government and we could sell it to democrats as more government power in the hands of fewer of them. I think it could work.

Of course, there is that pesky constitution to worry about, but hey, if we ever have another constitutional convention, I think this needs to be proposed.

Sorry, wasn't having two congressional bodies, elected by different systems, part of the system of checks and balances the founders put in deliberately under the theory that a single legislature, like a person, can become a tyrant?

No.

I guess you get to make up your own history.

Quote:

To avoid concentrating power in the hands of a few, Congress is uniquely structured. The House of Representatives is comprised of members who represent population districts within each state, while members of the Senate represent the states themselves. Additionally, every two years only a third of the Senate faces election while the entire House is subject to the vote. These overlapping layers of time, constituencies and individual members of Congress are meant to disperse legislative power.

http://classroom.synonym.com/importance-bicameral-legislature-congress-5237.html

The reason for the bicameral legislature was much, much more complex than merely trying to prevent a unicameral legislature from becoming a tyrant. In fact...that factor was a fairly small consideration...compared with the desires of small states not to be outshown by large states...and the bicameral legislature provided a compromise.

My answer to your question (NO)...was correct.

I agree that the desire of the small colonies not to become insignificant was a big part of the motivation for a bicameral legislature, but the desire to disperse power and keep the different parts of the government in a dynamic tension with each other was also a consideration unless you think that the Web citation I gave and all the others that say the same thing are wrong and that only you understand the history of the Constitution.

Sorry, wasn't having two congressional bodies, elected by different systems, part of the system of checks and balances the founders put in deliberately under the theory that a single legislature, like a person, can become a tyrant?

...So I do acknowledge I was wrong. I thank you for pointing it out…and I do apologize.