KY would bypass Electoral College under House plan

uscitizen said:
Should the Senate represent the people or another group of leclected representatives. If they are elected by the representatives why would they not just become a rubber stamp organization for the house ?
Click to expand...
Because the house wasn't electing them. They had separate priorities. Currently they are more beholden to the party because of the funding they need to run. More of a rubber stamp than before.

And yes, Darla, many of the things the States did were awful. I believe that there is, and can be, a better compromise than making the US into a homogenous entity.
 
Bush had moved us right along in the respect of dissolving a lot of our homogenousness. Not a good thing though. Can a nation divided against itself survive ?
 
uscitizen said:
Bush had moved us right along in the respect of dissolving a lot of our homogenousness. Not a good thing though. Can a nation divided against itself survive ?
Click to expand...
Right, only Bush did this. :rolleyes:

The parties work to keep it that way consistently, and have all my life. I watch as they get people worked up over issues that they refuse compromise or discussion other than their way. The devisiveness has long been in the works, not "caused by Bush" as you are wont to accuse. He is only the current focus.

However, this distracts from the actual homogenization of law and enforcement across the Federation.
 
Not only myself, but many on the media have commented on the increased visciousness of partisanship in our government.
 
uscitizen said:
Not only myself, but many on the media have commented on the increased visciousness of partisanship in our government.
Click to expand...
Which goes in cycles. The idea that it is caused all by Bush is pretty ridiculous, IMO. Before Bush took office it was there, that deep anger, waiting for its chance to rear its head. There were those who desperately wanted to get back at Rs for their role in the Clinton impeachment.
 
Damocles said:
Which goes in cycles. The idea that it is caused all by Bush is pretty ridiculous, IMO. Before Bush took office it was there, that deep anger, waiting for its chance to rear its head. There were those who desperately wanted to get back at Rs for their role in the Clinton impeachment.
Click to expand...
Umm I saw the clinton impeachment as an extension of Doles anger and you will be sorry speech after Bush I lost. You are one cycle behind in the vengence thing.
To me the mean politics started to escalate under Regan.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm I saw the clinton impeachment as an extension of Doles anger and you will be sorry speech after Bush I lost. You are one cycle behind in the vengence thing.
To me the mean politics started to escalate under Regan.
Click to expand...
It began to escalate in LBJ, it had a huge resurgence during Nixon. It is always there, waiting. The idea that only one guy created it is a bit ridiculous.
 
Bush put the pedal to the metal on it although he did not create it.
so you agree that overall it has been growing ?
And if so, what will be the end result ?
 
uscitizen said:
Bush put the pedal to the metal on it although he did not create it.
so you agree that overall it has been growing ?
And if so, what will be the end result ?
Click to expand...
I do, but I think it would have grown regardless of who won the election in 2000. Contention there added accellerant to the fire, to use an analogy.

I don't think that it is all Bush's fault. I think that it has been building for a while. As I said, I think it goes in cycles. You don't think it was contentious just before the Civil War, probably for a good decade or two?
 
Darla said:
Yes, and today, we have they tyranny of the less populous Southern states. Don't forget, as I'm sure you haven't, the founders made a few glaring mistakes. We've gone back and revisted them, and corrected them when need be.

Not everybody has to agree that the two Senators per state rule, is a good one. After all, originally, the founders had the Senators selected not by the people, but by the state legislature. We amended the constitution to correct that. I'd like to go back and take a look at this too. And, I'm not alone in that.
Click to expand...

The Amendment to allow direct election of Senators was an abortion, not a correction.
 
Troglodyte27 said:
The Amendment to allow direct election of Senators was an abortion, not a correction.
Click to expand...

Well, I think it's the more democratic choice. I'm all for it. And I'm all for changing the two Senators per state rule too. Give the less populous states one Senator. That should straighten a lot of this crap out, real quick. :)
 
Darla said:
Well, I think it's the more democratic choice. I'm all for it. And I'm all for changing the two Senators per state rule too. Give the less populous states one Senator. That should straighten a lot of this crap out, real quick. :)
Click to expand...
If you are in favor of democracy, yes it "straightens out" a lot of mess. I am not in favor of democracy.
 
Troglodyte27 said:
If you are in favor of democracy, yes it "straightens out" a lot of mess. I am not in favor of democracy.
Click to expand...

LOL. This, explains a lot Trog.

Well, you are a part of what Madison called the landed class, and I do see you fitting right in with Hamilton, so I am not surprised.
 
I typically support a more democratic state. Not really because I give a flip about what the masses think, but because forcing all the different parts of society to come together and debate on something is the most effective way to prevent tyranny. There can rarely be a "tyranny of the majority" because there is rarely a majority in many issues. They have to work together to find a solution.

Now, our majoritarian system of government does away with this a bit, but there is still enough compromise to make it worthwhile. And our system of checks and balances also prevents us from being a civil rights wasteland like most majoritarian nations (See Singapore and the United Kingdom).

I think that having the states legislatures elect senators would probably result in a much more homogenous senate and would also degrade our quality of government.
 
Darla said:
LOL. This, explains a lot Trog.

Well, you are a part of what Madison called the landed class, and I do see you fitting right in with Hamilton, so I am not surprised.
Click to expand...

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. - Sir Winston Spencer Churchill
 
Damocles said:
Which goes in cycles. The idea that it is caused all by Bush is pretty ridiculous, IMO. Before Bush took office it was there, that deep anger, waiting for its chance to rear its head. There were those who desperately wanted to get back at Rs for their role in the Clinton impeachment.
Click to expand...



It was there well before Bush II was president. The impeachment of President Clinton was an example of such animosity between the parties. They tried to get President Clinton for 7 years until they found something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top