• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the Senate be Eliminated

Hamish Howl said:
No. That's why we have the house of representatives.
Click to expand...

So you're ok with Vermont getting two votes in the Senate and California also getting two votes in the Senate?
 
Samwise said:
So you're ok with Vermont getting two votes in the Senate and California also getting two votes in the Senate?
Click to expand...
I am because California gets 55 votes in the House and Vermont has one.
 
Samwise said:
So you're ok with Vermont getting two votes in the Senate and California also getting two votes in the Senate?
Click to expand...

Yes. That's the way the system was designed and in fact is why there are two legislative chambers.
 
Bullseye said:
I am because California gets 55 votes in the House and Vermont has one.
Click to expand...

And this whole "electoral college is unfair" thing? You're okay with the system of choosing the president?
 
Samwise said:
Why are there two legislative chambers?
Click to expand...

Because nobody could agree which model to use, so they decided to do both, and to divide duties between them.
 
Samwise said:
And this whole "electoral college is unfair" thing? You're okay with the system of choosing the president?
Click to expand...

I'm okay with the electoral vote, and if anything at all I would eliminate the "electoral college" and simply apply the electoral votes of each State to the individual candidate with the most votes and be done with the election.
The President doesn't represent the majority of the people but instead must represent ALL the people.
Congress used to be made up of representatives of the people by the House members and the States by the Senate members and served as a check on legislation brought about in the House which might be difficult to implement by the State government.
Follow the money, and think 1913.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Personally I'd like to see two changes: term limits for representatives, senators, and judges, and a truly multi-party system that would better represent the various areas of the political spectrum.
Click to expand...



Oh, yes!

That's why the parliamentary system based on proportional representation (as in Italy and Israel) is so great: All viewpoints get a seat at the table, and compromise is necessary.

As it is, when either the Dems or Republicans get control of one chamber, it can ram anything through. And to Hades with the interests of the other party.


Have a nice day!
 
Samwise said:
Okay, so you're okay with a Vermonter having an advantage in the Senate but not in the choosing of the president. Weird.
Click to expand...

I would urge you in the strongest terms to take a course in American Government and find out how we arrived at the current Congressional set up and allocation.

I would further advise you that perfection in all matters is not the standard for ones acceptance or for rejection of something.

There is little doubt that the US Senate has flaws and defects. The question remains - do those flaws and defects warrant abolishing the Senate and I have answered a firm NO to that.

The election of the president of the USA is a different matter altogether and the flaws of the EC are damaging our nation by placing at risk of illegitimacy our highest office. It further risks the continued interference of a foreign power in our elections - something that the EC was suppose to protect us from but has not.

Those are two different matters and I would suggest to you that the same standard or criteria is not wisely applied to each.

In addition, you seem to believe you have stumbled onto some trap of logic that enables you to box me in to saying what you want me to say even though you will then come back and disagree with me. I have been here a very long time and have argued with lots of people. Those kind of conceits do not work with me.
 
TheParser said:
Oh, yes!

That's why the parliamentary system based on proportional representation (as in Italy and Israel) is so great: All viewpoints get a seat at the table, and compromise is necessary.

As it is, when either the Dems or Republicans get control of one chamber, it can ram anything through. And to Hades with the interests of the other party.


Have a nice day!
Click to expand...

Yes, not to forget how paralyzing the de-facto 2-party system is: one party gets the WH and the majority and undoes everything that the other party previously did, next time it's the other way around, the undoing repeats; if there is split government, everything gets obstructed. Meanwhile the nation doesn't progress. Compromise is now a foul word. Yes, a parliamentary system usually avoids these pitfalls.

The absence of term limits makes politicians more interested in being re-elected than in doing their jobs.
 
Samwise said:
Should the senate be eliminated because it gives unequal representation to people of the several sovereign states?
Click to expand...

We only have 10 years to save the planet so why bother.
 
Rich2018 said:
How does having half the legislature unelected achieve "Federalism" ?
Click to expand...
It reintroduces State Representation to the National Legislature, and allows their interests to simmer/cool the more passionate House.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
Samwise said:
Should the senate be eliminated because it gives unequal representation to people of the several sovereign states?
Click to expand...

I don't think that it should be eliminated but for the life of me, why the heck do we need 2 senators for each state?
 
cpwill said:
It reintroduces State Representation to the National Legislature, and allows their interests to simmer/cool the more passionate House.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

How ?

Are you suggesting that it would be an improvement to make Senators mere delegates of their respective states rather than representatives of the people ?

In which case, why have the Senate at all ?
 
I would oppose an amendment to eliminate the Senate unless we also eliminated the presidency and went to a parliament system with a lot more members.
 
Rich2018 said:
Are you suggesting that it would be an improvement to make Senators mere delegates of their respective states rather than representatives of the people ?
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

In which case, why have the Senate at all ?
Click to expand...

That is why we had it in the first place!
 
Drawdown said:
I would oppose an amendment to eliminate the Senate unless we also eliminated the presidency and went to a parliament system with a lot more members.
Click to expand...

A major mistake of the framers of the Constitution was to fail to split the offices of head of government from head of state.


A parliamentary system works so much better.
 
Rich2018 said:
A major mistake of the framers of the Constitution was to fail to split the offices of head of government from head of state.


A parliamentary system works so much better.
Click to expand...

Maybe for a unitary government but not for a treaty between sovereign states.
 
Rich2018 said:
Why, if senators are merely the mouth pieces of the states

Why do you even need them ? Just let the states vote on every bill.
Click to expand...

That is essentially what is happening. The senators are representatives, ambassadors if you will, for the states.
 
Samwise said:
That is essentially what is happening. The senators are representatives, ambassadors if you will, for the states.
Click to expand...

That is what they are intended to be, but the key is that they are representatives, not delegates and are free to voice their own opinion.

This president is a school yard bully though and will come after any senator or congressman who stands against him.

I almost think votes in the Senate and House should be secret. If they were, Trump would be toast.

That said this is a golden opportunity for GOP senators to strike back for the Constitution and their independence and convict Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom