Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Quick Thought: Replace Senate with State's votes.

Comments Filter:
  • I like it. Have the house be the one to write up all the bills and do all the haggling over wording. Then state legislatures act as a kind of veto before the President gets it. I think it would make congress move smoother while protectings its keen ability to do nothing at all.
    • while protectings its keen ability to do nothing at all.

      That is certainly part of it. It would also protects state's interests, and keep the Senate from dealing with anything that was simply not a national issue, as the states themselves would want to keep it for themselves.
    • I like it. Have the house be the one to write up all the bills and do all the haggling over wording. Then state legislatures act as a kind of veto before the President gets it. I think it would make congress move smoother while protectings its keen ability to do nothing at all.

      That sounds good. I suspect it's just about the result originally intended, except when the Constitution was written just notifying each legislature and awaiting their vote would have added days of delay, making negotiations very aw

      • I suspect it's just about the result originally intended, except when the Constitution was written just notifying each legislature and awaiting their vote would have added days of delay,

        Ever read a comment, be happy, and realize that it was you who wrote it? Well, that's what *should* have happened, but i forgot to write it. :)

        Basically, that is *exactly* what i meant to say. Thanx. Now i like you. :-P

        particularly if you "raise the bar" a little. Perhaps, like amendments,

        If the state's were the Senat
        • If the state's were the Senate, that wouldn't be needed. They wouldn't be looking to vote, and they wouldn't be looking to give up power. So, they'd probably not vote, or vote down anything that should be local. When intrastate affairs come up, they realize that they *must* negotiate, and that would be when the Senate would have a use. And you can bet the local state's legislatures would be argument vehemently over the votes.

          Certainly: my concern is the risk for some states to force through a measure agai

          • Interesting. But how often would that happen? Not only wqould a majority of states need to benefit from it, the majority of state's own legislature must also vote it. No "i scratch your back you scratch mine" deals, since were are dealsing with many-to-many.

            I figure that would even it out.

            Then again, these are politiians, so you may have a point.
  • What about when the country needs to decide something quickly? Wouldn't it make sense to have the states send a representative to cast their vote, via proxy?

    And we don't really want each state's legislative vote down to one man--that'd make the man as powerful as a governor. Better make it two per state...

    Hey, wait a mintue! This is exactly how the original US Constitution had Senators!

    Really, IMO direct election of 6-year senators is hardly the worst part of our system. If we were going to amend the
    • What about when the country needs to decide something quickly?

      If required, and that is hardly ever, Executive Order.

      Wouldn't it make sense to have the states send a representative to cast their vote

      If absolutely required, perhaps, in rare cases. Probably the governor.

      via proxy?

      No. Proxy == evil;

      And we don't really want each state's legislative vote down to one man--that'd make the man as powerful as a governor. Better make it two per state.

      Faulty logic. :)

      Your idea of the proxy is only to for
        • After FDR abused his office

        ...

        • or perhaps Clinton would be impeached for the second time by now.

        Matters of opinion, mine are: FDR rocked, and Clinton was the Second Best President right next to FDR. :-D

        Though honestly, I think that Term limits help to remove some of the responsability from the shoulders of the President, after two terms they can honestly say "Well, I have to step down now." With a man like Clinton who worked so hard as President (all jokes aside), you can just look at how though eig

        • Trivia question: What position have Clinton, Regan, and every other two-term president since FDR all held?

          Answer: "I want to run again."

          We should stop limiting our own choices by forcing Presidents who are willing to go for another four years to not run again. How many lackluster presidents have we gotten because everyone of quality couldn't run?
          • Err, wait now.

            I will trade skipping a third Clinton term for having skipped a third Regan term, given another term even Cliton wouldn't have been able to get us outa the mess this country would've been in!
      • If required, and that is hardly ever, Executive Order.

        XOs shouldn't be used to:

        * Ratify treaties
        * Declare War
        * Set the budget

        And ALL of those pass the Senate. Tust me--you don't want the Federal government bogged down by the crap that is State Government. The world is a far better place with the FEDERALIST system we have.

        History has proven that the masses are led too easily, and so when presidents went for two terms they excused themselves (similar to current practice on the IAB). After FDR abused h
        • You just ignored the "people are led easily" part. Just because a president is "elected" by people does not mean newspapers and TV and charismatic aspects of the candidate did not persuade the people to vote for him. How many presidents since the term limiting started had horrible charisma? How many other candidates, such as Nader, who don't come off well in front of the camera might actually have good qualities? How many people still just get most of their news from papers and TV allowing them to be swaye
          • Term limits help a little in preventing tyranny of the uninformed people. So do you want a president are you hate with dozens of terms or presidents you hate only 8 or 16 years alternating with ones you don't hate?

            You don't do your cause very good by getting the length of a President's term wrong. (Hint: Bush was elected in 2000, and he's running again now, in 2004.)

            Democracy is the best form of government because it formally gives the people the authority to recognize the government--making their activ
            • Actually that should be 8 of 16. I mistyped. And saying there is nothing that can be done about it isn't an option. It still ruins the elections. Until it is fixed democracy won't work. If it can never be fixed democracy can never work.
              • And saying there is nothing that can be done about it isn't an option. It still ruins the elections. Until it is fixed democracy won't work. If it can never be fixed democracy can never work.

                It never can be fixed--or if it can, it hasn't ever since small towns starting having direct democracy. (They may have done so in pre-colonial Europe!)

                Despite all that, however, Democracy does work.

                Obviously, there is something wrong with your hypothesis.
    • What about when the country needs to decide something quickly? Wouldn't it make sense to have the states send a representative to cast their vote, via proxy?

      I could be wrong, but I've heard rumors about the existence of some sort of instantaneous communications system, using cables or radio waves: they wouldn't need to send anyone anywhere.

      Besides: how often does it actually happen that a law must be passed in an emergency? If it does, what do you do when you discover Congress is in recess, so everyone'

  • Are a pit of political patronage that makes Washington look squeaky-clean by comparison.

    You might as well give ADM, GE, Cargill and others veto powers outright.
  • State legislatures are kept pretty busy on state issues, plus their schedules are often different.

    I think the answer is to go back to the old method-- state legislature appoints Senators. The whole point to a two-house legislature was to balance the desires of the people (the House) with the desires of the states (the Senate). Since we threw that out, we have become even more of a nanny-state because the people are becoming too stupid to do anything for themselves-- therefore all they do is ask the gove

    • tate legislatures are kept pretty busy on state issues

      Exactly! :)

      This way, they'd only do the Senate business begrudgingly, and with less playing around, so the rules are clear cut.

Hackers of the world, unite!

Working...