Stack the Senate instead of the Court

[fredtoast]

California is too big. It should be split into three separate States.

And it is not fair that Washington DC, which has more U.S. citizens than Wyoming and Vermont, has no representation in the US Senate.

That would bump us up to 56 states and increase the Senate to 112 seats.

Who is in favor?

[hollodero]

(10-14-2020, 02:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: California is too big.  It should be split into three separate States.

And it is not fair that Washington DC, which has more U.S. citizens than Wyoming and Vermont, has no representation in the US Senate.

That would bump us up to 56 states and increase the Senate to 112 seats.

Who is in favor?

I don't know about that particular approach. But I do think the current composition of the senate is blatantly unfair.

Starting with your territories that have no representation at all, including in the senate. Puerto Rico needs two senators or else you're just colonial occupiers. Guam and the others need at least a senator too. Washington, sure, that they de facto have no representation is weird and pretty un-democratic as well.
That California has two senators and the Dakotas have four also is pretty darn strange. I get the federalist approach, but this just takes it too far.

[Belsnickel]

(10-14-2020, 02:23 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know about that particular approach. But I do think the current composition of the senate is blatantly unfair.

Starting with your territories that have no representation at all, including in the senate. Puerto Rico needs two senators or else you're just colonial occupiers. Guam and the others need at least a senator too. Washington, sure, that they de facto have no representation is weird and pretty un-democratic as well.
That California has two senators and the Dakotas have four also is pretty darn strange. I get the federalist approach, but this just takes it too far.

Well, to give representation to our territories in the Congress would take a constitutional amendment. Article I specifically says that Congress is made up of people elected from the states, so statehood would need to be granted for people in places like DC, Puerto Rico, etc., to have that congressional representation. Personally, I don't have much of an issue with our current bicameral approach, but I'm also not totally enamored with it. I just want to see a more well represented populous in Congress, overall.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-14-2020, 02:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: California is too big.  It should be split into three separate States.

Sure, make the coast on state and divide rural north and south into two separate states.

Quote:And it is not fair that Washington DC, which has more U.S. citizens than Wyoming and Vermont, has no representation in the US Senate.

Absolutely, so merge it with Maryland, problem solved.

Quote:That would bump us up to 56 states and increase the Senate to 112 seats.

Who is in favor?

Under the terms above, absolutely.

(10-14-2020, 02:23 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know about that particular approach. But I do think the current composition of the senate is blatantly unfair.

People keep saying that like it's not by design.  

Quote:Starting with your territories that have no representation at all, including in the senate. Puerto Rico needs two senators or else you're just colonial occupiers.

Puerto Rico has voted against becoming a state in the past.  They are having another symbolic vote on it this election day.  I wouldn't be at all shocked if they vote against it again.  They have certain benefits under the current system that they would lose as a state.

Quote:Guam and the others need at least a senator too. Washington, sure, that they de facto have no representation is weird and pretty un-democratic as well.

Guam isn't a state and no one, except Dems, are looking to change that.  The D.C. issue is an easy fix, make it part of Maryland, problem solved.  We don't have city states in the modern world.

Quote:That California has two senators and the Dakotas have four also is pretty darn strange. I get the federalist approach, but this just takes it too far.

It's not strange at all, it's by design.  Seeing as how the United States has been the worlds most successful democratic republic for over two hundred years all this radical change being advanced smacks of impropriety.  This whole topic reeks of "we didn't get our way so let's change the rules so we never lose again".  I wonder what other bedrock foundations of our nation's government the left wants to radically alter or eliminate because they didn't win in 2016.  Honestly, the whole things reeks of a power grab/coup by legislation.

[hollodero]

(10-14-2020, 02:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, to give representation to our territories in the Congress would take a constitutional amendment. Article I specifically says that Congress is made up of people elected from the states, so statehood would need to be granted for people in places like DC, Puerto Rico, etc., to have that congressional representation.

Well, then I feel you absolutely need to do just that. As a democracy with the respective values.

American "citizens" with no representation, no right to vote. That is just glaringly ridiculous.

[fredtoast]

(10-14-2020, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Seeing as how the United States has been the worlds most successful democratic republic for over two hundred years all this radical change being advanced smacks of impropriety.  

The main reason we have been successful for so long is that we change things that are not working properly.  For example Senators were not elected by popular vote of the citizens until 1918.  The smartest thing the Founding Fathers did was provide for a way to amend the Constitution.

Right now we have a Supreme Court controlled by one party because of a President that lost the popular election and a Republican majority in the Senate that only represents a minority (42%) of the population. 

I don't think that is how democracy is supposed to work.  And the fact that you support the current system just because it is working for your party smacks of impropriety.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-14-2020, 02:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The main reason we have been successful for so long is that we change things that are not working properly.  For example Senators were not elected by popular vote of the citizens until 1918.  The smartest thing the Founding Fathers did was provide for a way to amend the Constitution.

So amend the Constitution then.

Quote:Right now we have a Supreme Court controlled by one party because of a President that lost the popular election and a Republican majority in the Senate that only represents a minority (42%) of the population. 

Incorrect.  SCOTUS jurists are not representatives of any political party.

Quote:I don't think that is how democracy is supposed to work.  And the fact that you support the current system just because it is working for your party smacks of impropriety.

Yes, I support the Constitution of the United States (I've sworn an oath to defend it multiple times) and don't want to change the rules just because things didn't go my way.  The fact that you think that is representative of impropriety says a lot about you and nothing about me.

[hollodero]

(10-14-2020, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: People keep saying that like it's not by design.  

I know it's by design. I question the design.

(10-14-2020, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Puerto Rico has voted against becoming a state in the past.  They are having another symbolic vote on it this election day.  I wouldn't be at all shocked if they vote against it again.  They have certain benefits under the current system that they would lose as a state.

That I did not know. I looked it up now, seems the last real conclusive "no" to statehood occurred in 1967. Then there were some inconclusive votes, and in 2012 60% voted for statehood. In 1997 a whopping 97% did so, albeit there was a call for boycott around, so there's a massive grain of salt.

But a vote against statehood, as far as I can see that did not occur any time recently.

(10-14-2020, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Guam isn't a state and no one, except Dems, are looking to change that.  The D.C. issue is an easy fix, make it part of Maryland, problem solved.  We don't have city states in the modern world.

Well... Monaco, Singapore and Vatican do exist. But sure, throw them to Maryland, seems fine to me. Maybe give them some additional electors in the EC then.

(10-14-2020, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's not strange at all, it's by design.  Seeing as how the United States has been the worlds most successful democratic republic for over two hundred years all this radical change being advanced smacks of impropriety.

That particular argument doesn't fare well with me. As of now, I feel you are not doing particularly well. You're deeply divided, your political landscape is a mess, money and donors and influence groups dominate politics, and you have a full blown and potentially dangerous demagogue on top. Doing well imho looks differently.
In the past you had a civil war, so there's also that.

(10-14-2020, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This whole topic reeks of "we didn't get our way so let's change the rules so we never lose again".  I wonder what other bedrock foundations of our nation's government the left wants to radically alter or eliminate because they didn't win in 2016.  Honestly, the whole things reeks of a power grab/coup by legislation.

Maybe some feel that way. I feel every citizen should have the right to vote. Heard this whole taxation without representation thing rubbed the first Americans back in the 18th century the wrong way. It rubs me the wrong way now.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-14-2020, 02:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: California is too big.  It should be split into three separate States.

No. Leave it.

(10-14-2020, 02:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And it is not fair that Washington DC, which has more U.S. citizens than Wyoming and Vermont, has no representation in the US Senate.

Make it a city in Maryland or Virginia. That said, I'm not totally against it being a state.

How about this: make West Virginia a part of Virginia, take a chunk of Virginia and give it to the new state of Washington D.C. (change the name, though)?

(10-14-2020, 02:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Who is in favor?

I'm in favor of making Puerto Rico a state, not so much Washington, D.C. I also don't really think we need to mess with the Senate so much as increase the representation in the House of Representatives to represent where we are as a country today.

[Belsnickel]

(10-14-2020, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Absolutely, so merge it with Maryland, problem solved.

See, this is why we took our portion back!

[Belsnickel]

(10-14-2020, 03:19 PM)PhilHos Wrote: How about this: make West Virginia a part of Virginia, take a chunk of Virginia and give it to the new state of Washington D.C. (change the name, though)?

I don't think you realize how many people in my area would love that. They would sacrifice everything north of I-66 in a heartbeat. If they could give Hampton Roads to North Carolina, they'd probably do that, too.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-14-2020, 03:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't think you realize how many people in my area would love that. They would sacrifice everything north of I-66 in a heartbeat. If they could give Hampton Roads to North Carolina, they'd probably do that, too.

My only problem with my suggestion is I wouldn't be able to make fun of West Virginians anymore..

[*bfine32*]

I caught tidbits of the McConnell/Magrath debate here in KY and something about the "too big" struck me.

McConnell says he's good for KY because he gives us a louder voice at the table (paraphrasing) and he's one of the very, very few leaders in DC that are not from Cali or NY.
I know most in here (to include at least 1 KY citizen) hates McConnell, but it did make me say hhhmmmm...

[Belsnickel]

(10-14-2020, 03:30 PM)PhilHos Wrote: My only problem with my suggestion is I wouldn't be able to make fun of West Virginians anymore..

Eh, just make fun of Virginians in general. The area I am in (Shenandoah Valley) ain't that much different, to be quite honest.

[Belsnickel]

(10-14-2020, 03:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I caught tidbits of the McConnell/Magrath debate here in KY and something about the "too big" struck me.

McConnell says he's good for KY because he gives us a louder voice at the table (paraphrasing) and he's one of the very, very few leaders in DC that are not from Cali or NY.
I know most in here (to include at least 1 KY citizen) hates McConnell, but it did make me say hhhmmmm...

Oh, that really bugs me about the leadership, to be honest. We have the issue here in our Virginia General Assembly, as well. All of our Democratic leaders are from NoVA and have zero idea what things are like south of I-66. It really is something that I have real problems with.

[Benton]

(10-14-2020, 03:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I caught tidbits of the McConnell/Magrath debate here in KY and something about the "too big" struck me.

McConnell says he's good for KY because he gives us a louder voice at the table (paraphrasing) and he's one of the very, very few leaders in DC that are not from Cali or NY.
I know most in here (to include at least 1 KY citizen) hates McConnell, but it did make me say hhhmmmm...

One of the few (I think it only happened twice) times management told me to write stories favoring a candidate was for McConnell and it was for that reason. I get the logic, but the results haven't shown that him having more power has done much for rural areas. If anything, he harmed them by some of his stances (cdbg's, lopsided trade deals, transitioning areas from shrinking employment to new technology, etc). 

His voice may be louder, but his ideas are smaller. Using the last election as an example, it was all 'the war on coal'. He claims to have won it, but admits those jobs aren't coming back. He hasn't done much to transition those Kentucky counties effected but touts saving their jobs.

[*bfine32*]

(10-14-2020, 03:56 PM)Benton Wrote: One of the few (I think it only happened twice) times management told me to write stories favoring a candidate was for McConnell and it was for that reason. I get the logic, but the results haven't shown that him having more power has done much for rural areas. If anything, he harmed them by some of his stances (cdbg's, lopsided trade deals, transitioning areas from shrinking employment to new technology, etc). 

His voice may be louder, but his ideas are smaller. Using the last election as an example, it was all 'the war on coal'. He claims to have won it, but admits those jobs aren't coming back. He hasn't done much to transition those Kentucky counties effected but touts saving their jobs.

Of course you were the 1 KY citizen to which I was referring as we've had our Mitch debates in the past.

But it's things like this that have me supporting Mitch when i really don't care if trump wins:

https://www.wlky.com/article/fort-knox-selected-for-new-army-headquarters/30879979

Quote:After an effort from some of Kentucky's top lawmakers, Fort Knox has been selected to be the Army's next headquarters.

Sens. Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, along with U.S. Rep. Brett Guthrie, recently sent a letter to the Army's top brass.

In it, they argued Fort Knox already has the capacity to handle the Army's needs.

It looks like the Department of the Army agreed.

According to the Army, Fort Knox will be the fourth corps headquarters location activated and will be called Fifth Corps (V Corps). This new corps headquarters location will bring approximately 635 additional soldiers to Kentucky.

[GMDino]

I think that when people resist change using the premise that "The US is great just the way it always was" makes no sense.

The country and government and the constitution have changed repeatedly over the years. 

It's just fear that keeps them back.  Either fear of loss of power or fear of change or both.  But it's silly IMHO.

[GMDino]

(10-14-2020, 04:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you were the 1 KY citizen to which I was referring as we've had our Mitch debates in the past.

But it's things like this that have me supporting Mitch when i really don't care if trump wins:

https://www.wlky.com/article/fort-knox-selected-for-new-army-headquarters/30879979

How many non-soldier jobs does that create?   I assume there is a boost in the economy from more people there but vs what Benton said it seems like small apples.  Albeit apples that you personally would be in favor of.

[*bfine32*]

(10-14-2020, 04:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: How many non-soldier jobs does that create?   I assume there is a boost in the economy from more people there but vs what Benton said it seems like small apples.  Albeit apples that you personally would be in favor of.

You'd be surprised the trickle down of jobs 635 new Soldiers in an area can generate.

And of course it's also foe selfish reasons; I want my community to prosper. Hell it came down to KY, GA, and NY getting the award. IMO without Mitch it goes to one of the others