Divide States to Democratize the Senate

Frank Apisa said:
By the way...learn to write as though you are not a moron.

What you almost certainly meant to whine here was, "I suspect you don't have the balls."

Saying "I don't suspect..." does not say the same thing...jerk-off.
Click to expand...

True. But you know what I was trying to say

Grammar and spelling nazis are for those who have lost the argument.

Accept that us smaller state have power as it was intended

Commiefornia and New Jersey have lots of representation in the House

Suck it Frankie
 
I Love America said:
The system works just fine. It was designed to keep HUGE populous states from bullying smaller states
Click to expand...

States do not do bullying. People do.

Giving the people of small population states more power than is fair...ALLOWS THEM TO BULLY THE PEOPLE IN THE HIGH POPULATION STATES.

The system was designed by the founders to allow the Union to come into existence.

It no longer is needed...BUT THERE IS NOT A GODDAM THING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT, BECAUSE THE BULLYING STATES...MOSTLY RED...WANT TO CONTINUE TO BULLY .

Did you know Frankie that had your preferred system been in place the South would have ruled the roost?
Click to expand...

If what I want for today's world had been in place back then...THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO UNION.

The asshole conservatives of the South were determined to enslave people.

What a bunch of scumbags they were...as Democrats...and what an even worse bunch of scumbags they are now as Republicans.

Yeah it is like you want to bring back slavery. Nostalgic for your democrat policies of brutalizing negroes Frankie?
Click to expand...

I am not a Democrat, you ignorant asshole.

And, it was the conservatives of America who espoused slavery. The liberals fought it with everything they had.

By the same token...it was the conservatives who, during Revolutionary America, who insisted that George III was our liege lord...and that talk of breaking away was treason.

Fucking conservatives.

ALWAYS ON THE WRONG SIDE.
 
I Love America said:
True. But you know what I was trying to say
Click to expand...

Yeah. But you ought to get to the point where you actually say what you want to say.



Grammar and spelling nazis are for those who have lost the argument.
Click to expand...

That was not a grammar or spelling error. It was a syntax error...the kind stupid people make.

Accept that us smaller state have power as it was intended
Click to expand...

I do, you fucking asshole, scumbag. I have said so several times. Besides learning how to write...you ought to learn a bit about reading also.

Commiefornia and New Jersey have lots of representation in the House
Click to expand...

Yes, they do...but less than their fair share. Which is what I have been saying.

Suck it Frankie
Click to expand...

Fuck you.
 
Cypress said:
Nobody really wants to break up states, it is the mental masturbation of pseudo-intellectuals bored and trying to think up a theme to write an opinion article about.

What needs to happen is to stop treating residents of D.C. and Puerto Rico as second-class citizens, let them vote a referendum on statehood, and admit them as states if the referendum passes.
Click to expand...

How does adding D.C. and Puerto Rico as states change the argument that the Senate is undemocratic?
 
cawacko said:
How does adding D.C. and Puerto Rico as states change the argument that the Senate is undemocratic?
Click to expand...

I do not make the argument the Senate needs wholesale change, or needs to be made more democratic.

It is the system we have, and it would take profound changes to the constitution to change the senate.

Splitting us up into 93 states ain't gonna happen - it is a non-starter.

DC and Puerto Rico statehood is within the realm of theoretically possibile, and it results in democratic representation for their residents.

My ideas for making our representative democracy more functional have nothing to do with splitting us into 93 states.

My ideas have been long-standing and publically articulated:

1) Make gerrymandering illegal, or remove the power to draw districts from state legislatures.
2) Make voting as easy and hassle free as possible.
3) Re-instatement and rigourous enforcement of the Voting Rights Act
4) Public financing of campaigns. Make private donations illegal.
5) Re-instate the fairness doctrine.
6) Get rid of the E.C.
7) Use ranked voting, or other effective and creative ways of enhancing democracy.


You do crap like that, and you simply do not need theoretical discussions of something that is never, ever going to happen - aka, splitting us into 93 states, or whatever.
 
Cypress said:
I do not make the argument the Senate needs wholesale change, or needs to be made more democratic.

It is the system we have, and it would take profound changes to the constitution to change the senate.

Splitting us up into 93 states ain't gonna happen - it is a non-starter.

DC and Puerto Rico statehood is within the realm of theoretically possibile, and it results in democratic representation for their residents.

My ideas for making our representative democracy more functional have nothing to do with splitting us into 93 states.

My ideas have been long-standing and publically articulated:

1) Make gerrymandering illegal, or remove the power to draw districts from state legislatures.
2) Make voting as easy and hassle free as possible.
3) Re-instatement and rigourous enforcement of the Voting Rights Act
4) Public financing of campaigns. Make private donations illegal.
5) Re-instate the fairness doctrine.
6) Get rid of the E.C.
7) Use ranked voting, or other effective and creative ways of enhancing democracy.


You do crap like that, and you simply do not need theoretical discussions of something that is never, ever going to happen - aka, splitting us into 93 states, or whatever.
Click to expand...

All good ideas, Cypress.

Unfortunately, #7 has less chance of happening than splitting into 93 states. That just is NOT going to happen.

Better to make an adjustment to the EC...which is also an almost dead end.

Right now the states get 1 elector for each member of congress.

That should end immediately. The states should get 1 elector for each Representative.

That will still leave a per capita imbalance...BUT MUCH, MUCH, MUCH less a per capita imbalance than the way it is done now.

Very slim chance of that happening also.

We just gotta go with what we have...or some of the large states have to split...which is the easiest option because it does not involve a Constitutional change or amendment.
 
The Senate was designed to keep all states equal regardless of population.
It's the only reason for having a second chamber.
Senators were supposed to be appointed by state legislators to look over state interests at the federal level.
A constitutional amendment put Senate choice to a popular vote.

The first problem is that the Dakotas/Idaho/Wyoming/Montana should be one state.
The entire area is one fucking snowball.

The entire confederacy should have been punitively redistricted to maybe three states.

The second problem is that rural states are over-represented with House districts.
 
Cypress said:
Nobody really wants to break up states, it is the mental masturbation of pseudo-intellectuals bored and trying to think up a theme to write an opinion article about.

What needs to happen is to stop treating residents of D.C. and Puerto Rico as second-class citizens, let them vote a referendum on statehood, and admit them as states if the referendum passes.
Click to expand...
PR has voted numerous times "no" to statehood.
Last time a poorly worded plebiscite got a "yes" vote -the referendum had red herrings in it that failure to vote yes on statehood would mean PR loses their citizenships.

Separation (balance) of powers precludes DC from statehood
 
I Love America said:
There was no inversion

That is the lie that leftists tell themselves to absolve their sins.

The cognitive dissonance is strong in you
Click to expand...

Not on topic, but that is not a "lie"

Democrats were the CONSERVATIVE political party as the Republican Party is today, you didn't really think they were called "Radical Republicans" because they were conservative did you?
 
Frank Apisa said:
Wake up, you fucking jerk-off moron.

At the very beginning of this...I acknowledged that what I want will almost certainly never come about.

I am talking about the injustice of the system.

Okay, you asshole?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is unlikely that Jessica Alba will be your willing fuck toy, though I do admire your choice making.
 
Frank Apisa said:
There is no other way...without a constitutional amendment.

Larger population states HAVE GOT TO SPLIT...or smaller population states must be amalgamated.

Here in New Jersey...the North and South are like different states already. We even root for different sports teams.

New Jersey could easily divide into THREE states...North Jersey, Middle Jersey and South Jersey...each with about 3,000,000 people.

The costs would be enormous. The idea of three state legislatures sucks.

But if several of the large states declare intentions of doing so...it might bring the others to consciousness. Maybe it could set the stage for a Constitutional amendment getting the Senate into greater population parity.

Making the Electoral College more equitable is a much easier thing to do.
Click to expand...

this is a nonexistent problem, hallucinated by sore loser dems. grow up.
 
AssHatZombie said:
this is a nonexistent problem, hallucinated by sore loser dems. grow up.
Click to expand...

Fuck you, Jerk-Off.

It is a major problem...both in the Senate...and in the Electoral College.

It happens to be a problem that has NO easy solution...and perhaps no realistic solution.




The only one that has any possibility of working...is the "divide states" idea.

I'd gladly see New Jersey separated into two states. The southern half of the state (part of which is below the Mason Dixon Line)...doesn't deserve to be part of this state.

Fucking Eagles fans.

I piss on Eagles Green.
 
archives said:
Not on topic, but that is not a "lie"

Democrats were the CONSERVATIVE political party as the Republican Party is today, you didn't really think they were called "Radical Republicans" because they were conservative did you?
Click to expand...

It is all a lie you leftists tell yourselves. There was no "inversion" due to race. It never happened
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top