kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-21-05 09:33 PM
Original message |
Shouldn't California's Senators Votes be counted for more than just two? |
|
After all, since each state gets 2 Senators - no matter how large or how small - the two Senators from California represent as many people as the Senators in the ten least populated states. And those states get 20 votes but California only gets two. So, in truth, we have the majority - even though we have less Senators in the Senate - we still represent the most people in the country. :)
|
BattyDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-21-05 09:35 PM
Response to Original message |
1. As far as I'm concerned ... |
|
CA can have as many Senators as they want ... just as long as they're all named "Boxer" :patriot:
|
Jack Rabbit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-21-05 09:39 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Except that was the idea |
|
Some at the Constitutional convention in Philadelphia (1787) wanted a Congress that would represent the people; others wanted one would represent the states with an equal number of votes.
The compromised and had two houses of Congress.
|
aquart
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-21-05 09:39 PM
Response to Original message |
3. No dear, proportional representation is in the House, not the Senate. |
kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-21-05 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
:) Just putting a little something out there to think about when the discussion turns to filibuster. They may have more Senators but they don't represent the majority of the people.
|
wtmusic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-21-05 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
14. Back in 1787 in an agrarian economy |
|
geography played a far more important role.
Maybe Senate votes should be "unweighted" vs. House votes to reflect today's extremes of population distribution.
|
onehandle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-21-05 09:43 PM
Response to Original message |
4. And Wyoming Senators should get only 1/25th of a vote. |
|
Damn that pesky Constitution!
|
RoyGBiv
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-21-05 09:43 PM
Response to Original message |
5. I'd be all for that ... |
|
If we didn't have to consider the number of votes Senators from Texas should get for the same reason.
The structure of the Senate is not a bad idea, imo.
|
kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-21-05 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
9. And don't forget NY and Illinois... |
RoyGBiv
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-21-05 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
|
But like the "nuclear option" the Republicans are considering and the "two-term limit" they blew through the country in the wake of FDR's terms, when the pendulum swings, we'd all be singing a different tune.
The Framers had a genius for institutions. Those institutions matter more than the make-up of those institutions at any given moment.
|
last_texas_dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-21-05 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
10. Great minds think alike |
|
I promise I wasn't just copying you in my post below! :hi:
|
RoyGBiv
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-21-05 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
13. A toast to synchronicity!!! |
mitchtv
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-21-05 09:44 PM
Response to Original message |
|
is a Californian 36 million. Independence now
|
last_texas_dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-21-05 09:45 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Sounds good to me, except |
|
if CA got 20 Senators then TX would have to have at least 12 or so and you know the kind of wing-nuts we'd put in there....
|
kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-21-05 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
11. Chicago and NYC would take care of Texas... |
Worst Username Ever
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-21-05 09:58 PM
Response to Original message |
15. That is what the house is for n/t |
Liberty Belle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-22-05 12:04 AM
Response to Original message |
16. Hmmm. There's an idea. CA could split up into 3 states... |
|
North, Central, and Southern. So we'd get 6 Senators, not 2.
On second thought, bad idea. No doubt Texas would follow suit, and we'd get flooded by Bushie clones.
|
ISUGRADIA
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-22-05 03:29 AM
Response to Original message |
17. Seems logical except every other state would have to agree to it |
LimpingLib
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-22-05 04:57 AM
Response to Original message |
18. I thought us Democrats supported the minoritys? |
|
Isnt that why we all the sudden have become the filibusters greatest defender?
Anyway I agree with your post to an extent but why not just abolish the Senate all together? Instead of giving a bunch of statewide seats, ho about we just have a nation of congressional districts like every other nation in the world?
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 06th 2024, 10:48 PM
Response to Original message |