I don't think the House is much better or better than the Senate, despite be more numerically correct. — Coben
. The two party system is also very damaging, especially — Coben
I think worse undermining of democracy comes from campaign finance, lobbying, consolidation of the media, and revolving doors between industy and government, for example in oversight of industry. — Coben
n the US, each state gets two Senators no matter how many people reside in that state. California with tens of millions more people than Alaska gets two Senators and Alaska gets two Senators. How exactly is that democratic?! How is the Senate ever going to reflect the will of the people?! — Noah Te Stroete
The Senate is an extremely undemocratic system and we should get rid of it — Maw
tim wood, you’re either ignorant or an asshole. — Noah Te Stroete
if you knew the history a little better. — tim wood
The US government was never meant to be entirely democratic. It's a representative republic with a Constitution and an unelected Judicial Branch. — Marchesk
All this ranting underscores that none of you, apparently, has any understanding of the history of the writing of the US Constitution. Interesting fact: the USA is the oldest continuous (with some minor qualifications) form of government on the planet. Is the Constitution perfect? No one pretends it is. But it is a constitution, not a mathematical treatise. That is, it is neither for once and for all all right or all wrong, but it does provide for its own correction and adjustment.
And no one speaking other than informally supposes that the US is a democracy. The Athenians tried that and found it problematic. The US is a federal republic with a representative form of government - which includes the presidential election. Most folks castigate the electoral college - but understand neither it nor its purpose. It exists to negative the popular vote, should the populace elect a bad man. We did, and they didn't. So it's not their purpose that's a defect, but their practice! — tim wood
1) an amendment to be ratified requires three-fourths of the states’ approval; it’s two-thirds in ( of) Congress.
2) “impossible” seems an odd adjective since the current method of direct election was, in fact, eagerly changed and welcomed by the senate, following the antecedent and original process of state ( legislature) elections. — Reshuffle
Absolute jabberwocky. — Maw
The father of the constitution, Madison, would disagree. He offers multiple valid justifications for the senate in The Federalist Papers 62 and 63.
Personally, I think he struck gold when espousing the notion of its deliberative mode, by virtue of six year terms, as a tool to counterbalance the frenzy and passions of the hour. — Reshuffle
It would be nearly impossible to change the structure of the Senate. This is so because it would hurt Republicans, the same reason why Republicans make it harder for people to vote. So, yes, it is NEARLY impossible. — Noah Te Stroete
Secondly, you say changing the senate structure would be nearly impossible since it would hurt the republicans. I’m sorry, but demographics nationally refute your proposition.
The original process for senate elections was via state legislatures. The GOP currently controls 30 of them; maybe 31. Around there. Those numbers will little change in short course.
Thus, there is an exceedingly valid reason for the GOP to change the current structure-i.e., to return to state elections as a more secure means of being elected. — Reshuffle
I don’t understand your argument to refute my claim. I’m talking about the current state of politics in this country. — Noah Te Stroete
Because they have to go to extreme lengths to hold onto the power they have. — Noah Te Stroete
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.