How to Fix Congress

[Marxist ßastard]

the make up of congress is designed to balance the power of the larger states in relation to the the smaller states

And the Senate was designed to be chosen by state legislatures. But the 17th Amendment did away with that. Now state legislatures aren't represented in Congress. Only a mass of citizens separated by arbitrary boundaries.

 

So why should there be a house where a person in Wyoming gets 75 times the representation as a person in California?

 

Why should a person in Wyoming get to cast a vote for President that counts 4 times that of a person in California?

 

this system is designed to protect the little states

Yes, it was designed to protect the legislatures of little states. Now it only gives disproportionate representation to people in little states.

 

And why is “people in little states” a minority worth protecting? Why not set up a new house of Congress to protect people with Afros? How about goldfish owners? The divisions are no less arbitrary.

 

being no check now on the power of the executive... The House Of Lords in fact acted as a brake on the executive for many years

In the US, Congress keeps the President in check and vice versa. The Senate isn't the only body providing the checks, and its power extends far beyond checking power.

 

Yes, the UK's reform has generated its own little abuses. But don't you agree that it would be absurd to restore the House of Lords to full power, with its original membership?

 

The Parliament Act of 1911 stopped them vetoing budgets

And we don't even have that. A minority of the Senate, representing 10% of the population, can block any bill, including those required to keep the government from shutting down. That's insane.

 

the issue is with individuals not being up to the standards of high office, not necessarily the system per se.

Corrupt systems make corrupt people. If I told you that due to a compromise that happened 200 years ago, you and 39 of your friends could completely shut down the government – how could it not go to your head?

[ginnyfizz]

I am not convinced that replacing the House of Lords as it was with a bunch of political toadies has improved it any. The House of Lords as they were, were every bit as likely to give a bloody nose to a Conservative government as they were to a Labour one. Say what you like about them, but they were an independent bunch of old buffers whose standard of debate was remarkably high, given that amongst all the aristos who you no doubt think should all be sent à la lanterne, the ones who actually spoke and did anything in the House were often eminently sensible and eloquent, and that among the non ancien regime peers you would often find meritocrats who had come from the top of their respective professions. Nor were they any more prone to get nissed as pewts and fall asleep on the benches than that shower in the Commons. Yes, I have sat in the gallery and listened to both Houses.

[Marxist ßastard]

a bunch of political toadies

Okay, well, that's how it's been in the Senate from Day 1. So in the interest of patching up my falling-to-pieces analogy: Would you support giving the House of Lords back its full powers if it comprised the same basic people as the House of Commons, just lazier, more corrupt, and in slightly different proportions?

[Aurielius]

And why is “people in little states” a minority worth protecting? Why not set up a new house of Congress to protect people with Afros? How about goldfish owners? The divisions are no less arbitrary.

 

A curious question as to why the 'little states' should not be protected, it is exactly this form of 'Majority Tyranny' that the founders worked so hard to prevent. The states are the core political subdivisions of the country where as racial groups are spectrum wide across the country so not so arbitrary. The very fact that you question the need for protection speaks volumes as to how you see the function of government. it seems you need reminding that the US is a Republic not a democracy.

[Marxist ßastard]

Again: The Founders intended for senators to represent state legislatures. But the 17th Amendment ended that. Now senators just give more representation to their state's citizens. And that representation gets used for everything, not just states' rights issues.

 

You're the mayor of Simpleville. Simpleville has two widget factories. The small factory has 20 employees. The big factory has 2000 employees. You give each employee a yearly salary of $1000. You give each factory a yearly payment of $20,000. Under the old arrangement, salaries went to employees, the factories' payments went to capital improvements, and never the twain met. Everyone was happy.

 

But now each factory's payment just gets redistributed among its employees. The employees spend the money on whatever they want. Effectively, employees from the small factory get a $2000 salary. Employees from the big factory get a $1010 salary. You want everyone to be paid equally, because while factories are the basic unit of widget production, workers shouldn't get paid more just because they randomly work in one factory instead of the other. So you could stop paying the factories. Or you could force the employees to put the factory payments back into the factory. Either way, your factory payments system – which used to work brilliantly – must be crippled.

[Aurielius]

Again: The Founders intended for senators to represent state legislatures. But the 17th Amendment ended that. Now senators just give more representation to their state's citizens. And that representation gets used for everything, not just states' rights issues.

 

It seems that the title United States eludes you as to the meaning, a collection of united states. The senate's construction and function predated the 17th amendment by about 118 years, direct election of senators by their state's population proves your point in no valid way. The (senators) still function as the deliberating body that reviews the House's bills, something that the English wish they still had with their House of Lords.

As to why a small rural state such as Vermont should be at the mercy of a populous state like California is why the founders constructed Congress the way they did. Once more, the US is not a populist democracy and never was or was intended to be.

[HeyYou]

If there were no senate, then california could thrust its absolutely over-the-top laws on the rest of the US. I have zero desire to see that happen.

[Marxist ßastard]

Alright, just a quick reality check: You do realize that by “crippling” the Senate, I meant to make it act only on states' rights issues, right? Thereby giving state legislatures much more power in Congress? Moving the Senate closer to the Founders' intent? Check upthread.

 

Oh, and you have run Simpleville into the ground. Your fellow Simpletons revile you as the worst mayor in the town's short but eventful history.

[JimboUK]

I am not convinced that replacing the House of Lords as it was with a bunch of political toadies has improved it any. The House of Lords as they were, were every bit as likely to give a bloody nose to a Conservative government as they were to a Labour one. Say what you like about them, but they were an independent bunch of old buffers whose standard of debate was remarkably high, given that amongst all the aristos who you no doubt think should all be sent à la lanterne, the ones who actually spoke and did anything in the House were often eminently sensible and eloquent, and that among the non ancien regime peers you would often find meritocrats who had come from the top of their respective professions. Nor were they any more prone to get nissed as pewts and fall asleep on the benches than that shower in the Commons. Yes, I have sat in the gallery and listened to both Houses.

 

The upper house is a waste of space now, to have any legitimacy it needs to be made fully elected, anything short of that and it'll remain nothing more than a rubber stamp for those self serving scumbags in the other place. I don't see it happening, Call Me Dave and his Lib Dem pals are no different to the lot we threw out in 2010.

[Aurielius]

Alright, just a quick reality check: You do realize that by “crippling” the Senate, I meant to make it act only on states' rights issues, right? Thereby giving state legislatures much more power in Congress? Moving the Senate closer to the Founders' intent? Check upthread.

 

Oh, and you have run Simpleville into the ground. Your fellow Simpletons revile you as the worst mayor in the town's short but eventful history.

 

 

Yes the fact that you would like to cripple the Senate has less to do with states rights than your desire to move the government to a populist referendum concept more in line with your ideology, too bad Marxism failed miserably when implemented. If your intent is to enlighten or convert me with the virtues populist governmental systems, save your fingers the exercise in futility.

 

Since you are the sole inhabitant of Simpleville it's demise was not missed by anyone. :whistling: