Why even have a House of Representatives..

[samrock]

If they just have to take it up the ass by every desire of the senate???

[stray cat]

1. the constitution? It was meant to counter the senate as a check and balance

[TorchTheWitch]

8. and the House isn't doing it's job

Neither is the Senate or the President. And they aren't because the people failed in their duty to make their representatives do what the people wanted.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

We were warned that in order for people to have the right to govern themselves came with it the duty that the government they elected to represent them adhere to the needs and wants of the people, and if they didn't to replace them with others who would. We the people failed in that duty, and it is still the responsibility of the people to recognize that failure and to right the wrongs that failure enabled for ourselves as well as for our future generations.

[WeDidIt]

2. The House is the reactionary body

The Senate is the deliberative body.

This is by design.

Google "The Great Compromise" for more information.

[L0oniX]

3. They certainly don't represent me.

[Shadowwiggs]

4. The house generally gets filled with idiots voted in by morons.

While the senate is generally filled with imbeciles voted in by morons.

So you can see it is the smarter of the two....

[Auggie]

6. Welcome to DU -- you know your politics

:hi:

[Fire1]

7. Yourself included, of course. n/t

[MercutioATC]

16. You take issue with the statement?

Let me try.

Our "House of Commons" is comprised of homegrown idiots elected by their buddies.

Our "House of Lords" is comprised of educated greedy bastards elected by their educated greedy cronies.


Is that more palatable?

[Fire1]

18. Perhaps but still not accurate. n/t

[MercutioATC]

22. I'm dying to hear your take on this.

Care to share?

[Moochy]

23. Democracy in the united States has nothing wrong with it!

it's the best, nothing should be changed. :patriot:

[Fire1]

26. We are the body of people entitled to vote bka the

electorate. If you want to consider yourself a "moron" more power to you. I consider myself an informed voter. If a poster is going to generalize or broad brush a populace, he/she must include themselves. That's the way I see it.

[MercutioATC]

27. Fair enough.

I'm all about electorate responsibility...and I vote.

...but, increasingly, my summation seems to ring true.

[laughingliberal]

31. In depth analysis. lol. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[nemo137]

5. As much as this is going to make me sound like a raging winger

In the original set up, where the House was elected and the Senate appointed, it probably worked more as advertised re: responsive vs. deliberative.

[samrock]

9. I mean in the health care debate,,

It seems like NONE of the measures in the house bill are getting added into the reconciled bill..

[DJ13]

10. The problem is that the Founders didnt index the # of Senators

... to match the population of the states.

That leaves small states with a million people to have a veto power over the needs of those states with 50 million.

[Goblinmonger]

11. They did that on purpose.

It's called federalism. States still maintain some level of power.

[DJ13]

14. "Some" shouldnt mean New York or California end up with less representation

than Montana or Wyoming per citizen.

That aspect is the flaw in our system that is being exploited by the corporations to everyones detriment.

They just buy 3 or 4 small state Senate candidates and they effectively block any reform that might impact their business.

See HCR for an obvious example.

[Goblinmonger]

19. So you would rather have it

that the corporations would just have to focus on the 4 big states and fuck the rest of the country? That doesn't seem like a good plan.

And how do you block any reform if you buy 6 to 8 Senators? It must not be very crystal clear if that is all it takes. And under the current system you just need to no vote for that Senator if they are crooked and case solved. Not so if we just go to population based representation only.

Madison was a genius and we shouldn't screw with this plan.

[DJ13]

21. how do you block any reform if you buy 6 to 8 Senators?

Were you asleep throughout Bachus's running roughshod over real reforms for most of this year?

[Goblinmonger]

25. I'm pissed about it, too

but that's the way the system is supposed to work. The Senate is supposed to slow things down.

My point was that it takes more than just 6 to 8 Senators. Sure, that may have been the impression we got from this current run, but it meant that there were close to 40is already against it or with no backbone to stand up for what is right. Some of those need to be replaced by their constituents.

[DJ13]

29. The system was designed to accomodate low populations

It was never envisioned to serve 300 million people, nor for the population densities to be so unevenly distributed.

Theres no reason to believe that adding Senators to more closely reflect state populations (notice I didnt say accurately reflect) would obstruct the deliberative nature of the body.

As it stands now this system is rigged against representation for average americans, and run solely to benefit the wishes of the wealthy few.

[Goblinmonger]

42. Uneven distribution would be an argument to keep the Senate

not to get rid of it. If the population is more unevenly distributed (though I think it is only by a factor of about 3 in comparison of biggest to smallest since 1790), then getting rid of the Senate would completely screw the smaller states. They would become useless and federalism would take a major hit.

[DJ13]

45. I wasnt advocating getting rid of it

Just make it more reflective of state populations.

[Goblinmonger]

46. Which makes it no different than the House.

Which makes us, essentially, unicameral.

[DJ13]

47. We already are

So its okay with you for those in California to have no real health care reform because their two Senators are canceled out by the two Senators from Wyoming?

And you really think thats a good system?

[dflprincess]

50. Yes, the Senate is suppose to slow things down by taking more time

to debate and consider an issue. Not because they're waiting to see how high the bidding for their votes will go.

[Goblinmonger]

52. Then those Senators should be voted out by their constituents

if they are being bought. That would solve that problem, then.

[dflprincess]

61. And hopefully they will be

What amazed me about the healthcare debate is that so many of them didn't even bother to try and hide that they've been bought.

What I fear is, that they have turned so many voters off with their behavior, that people just won't bother to show up at all and we'll lose the few good ones that are left along with the crooks.

[FLDCVADem]

12. Which is exactly as it was designed n/t

[JVS]

35. The problem is that we live in a country that fetishizes a very old constitution

If the major governing of the country is to be done on the federal level, then a representational system rooted in state delegations to the national government must be abandoned, or at the very least tweaked so that the national legislature is reflective of the people's will. Consider this. There are 537 elected officials in Washington DC. Only two of them are elected by the entire country (Pres and VP).

[DJ13]

38. True

They assumed the states would remain the principle government to address the needs of their citizens, the Federal government was thought of as an arbitrator between states, a regulator of commerce between states, and a overseer of national defense.

The Founders never envisioned the Federal government would morph into the main government over the people.

[Goblinmonger]

43. So why even have states

if you are basically arguing for a unicameral system that is selected at a nationwide level.

Or why even have anyone but New York, California, Florida, and Texas vote for those representatives?

[JVS]

49. The state governments do carry out functions.

Unless the federal government wants to start taking care of that, I see no reason to get rid of states,


"Or why even have anyone but New York, California, Florida, and Texas vote for those representatives?"

What are you talking about?

I merely am suggesting that we'd have a better legislature if there was nation-wide input on it rather than it consisting of a patchwork of people selected purely by state, or district contests.

[Goblinmonger]

51. What I'm talking about

is that if we just went with nationally selected legislators, then the small states would become meaningless in the process of selection and the large states would dominate. Which was the basis for the Great Compromise back in the 1780s. Don't know why it is any less of a legitimate argument now.

[JVS]

53. Why should the citizen get a federal government that is sifted through state government?

That's what they used to do. We've moved to having national politics, but it is made unrepresentative of the people by clinging to the archaic system in which there was no direct contact between national government and voter.

[Goblinmonger]

55. Brings up a couple things:

1. maybe it's a problem that we have moved to such a focus on national politics. Maybe the Constitution Revolution of 37, though it brought about some good things, needs to be curtailed a little bit and more power given back to the states.

2. How is there not direct contact. I vote for a representative and a senator--they vote for legislation. I'm like one degree of separation away.

[JVS]

58. I don't think having a national government is a problem

1. That ship has sailed. We're a country, not an amalgamation of states. Send a memo to the constitution on that one, it's out of date.

2. 537 elected politicians. Only 5 (4 if we count VP and Prez as one ticket) of them need to give a shit about you. Prez and VP need your vote. One congressman needs it every two years. Each Senator needs it every 6 years. This is a recipe for you to get shit all over. You've been written out of the game. And the ones who need your vote least are granted the most power in the system.

Consider alternatives, such as half the seats being direct district election winners and the rest being determined by support for a party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestag#Distribution_of_seats_in_the_Bundestag

[Double T]

13. For that matter why do we have a congress that accomplishes little or specially nothing.

The full time jobs in Congress should be replaced with part timers with two year term limits.

[demosincebirth]

15. self deleted

[demosincebirth]

17. why have a senate? The house is more representative of what the people want.

[Goblinmonger]

20. Reaction vs Stability

The House is the impulse and the Senate is the memory. That's why there can be a complete turnover of the House every two years but only 1/3 of the Senate.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FLDCVADem]

34. No, it's an argument

that correctly addresses the issue.

You may not like the way the bicameral legislature works, but unless you are willing to fight for a Constitutional amendment to change it, then it is what it is. It is working EXACTLY as the framers designed it to work.

[burning rain]

57. The poster clearly likes it too, & that's what I'm addressing.

I realize, however, that the Senate functions today more-or-less the way the Founders intended it to, and that abolishing it, or changing the basis for representation therein to population, would require a constitutional amendment, not feasible in the near or even medium term. That's why I support ending the 60-votes-for-cloture rule now, as a way of making the Senate more democratic, although the basis for getting elected to the Senate is inherently anti-democratic.

[Goblinmonger]

39. Could you possibly explain to me

how supporting a unicameral system is of the democratic party and supporting a bicameral system is of the republican party? I must have missed that in the platforms. Can you possibly present one major leader in the democratic party that supports a move to a unicameral system?

Madison also supported a system with three branches of government and democratic republic. Would I be a conservative and anti-democratic if I said those things were good?

I'm making an argument that our system works and was a stroke of genius by Madison (his possible views on slavery notwithstanding). You may not like the current outcomes, but I would venture to guess you liked the system when it stopped things the republicans wanted. Surely you aren't so short sighted as to just want to get rid of something because it isn't working to your advantage at this very moment.

[burning rain]

54. It is inherently conservative...

to support narrow regional interests over the entire citizenry's desire to make changes. At the time of the Founders, the conservative position was pro-monarchy, so adopting a highly compromised form of democracy made them leftish for their time, but extreme right-wingers by today's standards.

[Goblinmonger]

56. One might argue

that you are making very elitist arguments.

If the "entire citizenry" wishes to have a change, how does our current system stop that from happening? Perhaps if you cut back on the hyperbole you might make arguments that didn't sound silly.

Yes, Jefferson would be a right-winger today. Of course.

[burning rain]

59. I don't much care whether you find my arguments silly.

You can reply or not, and the "elitist" bit just seems irrelevant to me.

It is much easier for a narrow interest, regional or otherwise, to capture 41 (the current number required with the 3/5-for-cloture rule) senators to take a position contrary to the majority of American citizens, than to capture 51 (with simple majority). Back when you needed 2/3 for cloture in the Senate, one result was that there was no civil rights legislation passed between Reconstruction and EIsenhower's second term. And that was overwhelmingly due to the votes of Southern senators--a clear example of an oppressive regional interest. "Stopping" is a relative, not an absolute matter. It is easier to stop a popular change agenda if you only need 41 votes to do so, harder if you need 51. Easier with the current undemocratic apportionment of senators advantaging nearly-all-white rural conservative states on balance, harder with apportionment by population.

[burning rain]

60. I meant small "d" democratic.

Although the Democratic Party does tend to be more democratic--more in favor of democracy--than the Republican Party. And when I wite "republican" with a small "r" I am always referring to a republican form of government, never to the GOP, in which case I use a capital "R."

[Vidar]

24. The Senate --America's House of Lords-- is the one that has to go.

[FLDCVADem]

28. No thanks n/t

[glitch]

36. Yes, please. nt

[laughingliberal]

30. We could probably just send the progressive caucus home for the duration

Nothing much for them to do except come up with ideas people like and then get beat up by the White House to drop 'em. About 90% of the Democratic Senators might as well kick back, too.

edited spelling

[glitch]

37. Yep. Spinning their wheels on a failed system. nt

[beyurslf]

33. The House is supposed to be the body that changes all the time by the will of the people.

That is why we need term limits in the House.

[Goblinmonger]

40. We do have term limits

They are called elections every two years. Or do you not like the will of the people when it means people you don't like stay in office?

[beyurslf]

62. Actually, yes that is right. I don't like the will of the people. The House should change

regularly so members can't be bought so easily. 12 years is a long time in Washington in the House and they should be limited to that. We limit Gov's and the Prez. In my city, even city council and mayor are limited. I think the Senate should not have limits. They are the roadblock against the executive and the deliberative body. Long time experience can come in handy for that.

[LostInAnomie]

41. The Senate's filibuster is what has made them toothless in the past 15 years.

If you want some kind of reform (no matter the subject) if the Senate cannot get past the 60 vote threshold, there is no point. The filibuster insures that only the most conservative bills are passed in both houses.

[Goblinmonger]

44. The problem with the last 15 years

is that the Republicans have been willing to use it and the Dems haven't.

It never ceases to amaze me that those in power bitch about the filibuster and those out of power love it. How can we be so short sighted that we don't see that it is a good thing, just not for us right now? Certainly we are smarter that the Republicans that bitched about it 4 years ago but love it now.

[LostInAnomie]

48. The problem is that it's not being used in good faith.

Instead of it being used for legitimate objections of the minority, it is being used as a weapon of obstruction. Something will eventually have to be done about it or the country will become ungovernable.