What would you do to make the Senate "work" again

T. A. Gardner

T. A. Gardner

Thread Killer
In the last couple of decades the US Senate has become less and less capable of getting anything done. What would you do to fix it.

Me?

Abolish the 17th Amendment and return to the previous appointment of Senators by state governors and legislators.

The filibuster, as it stands today could be abolished. But that won't fix much. The Democrats would have a very temporary and fleeting advantage doing that now. In 2022, the Senate could very well flip back to a Republican majority. Then they get a turn using the Democrat change on them--likely much to their vocal protests.

On the other hand, eliminating the direct election of Senators returns the power of the Senate to the States. That gives states a much larger voice in the federal government--why it was originally done that way.
I'm sure some will protest that is not "democratic" in that it takes the election of Senators away from the People. Good. The House is there to represent the People. That's it's job. The Senate should never have become what amounts to a second House. Instead, the Senate is there to represent the States and the government of those states (which are chosen by the people of that state).

If this were done, it would return the Senate to a body that responds to the various states, not a rubber stamp by party of the House like it is now. Eliminating the filibuster just completes the transition of the Senate into a second House meaning it no longer has any real or valid purpose to exist as a separate entity.
 
Petition your state congress for an Article V happening?
It needs to be done, because they aren't representing their states or the citizens.
That shit is broken! They represent lobbyists and that's it!
"This thing is broken" -Rick Scott (A grafty politician from FL after getting up in The Senate)

The Senate is one of the biggest problems in America today. Mainly that they can legally accept bribes.
Stop that, and things could be much better.
 
Is the reason for this suggestion because the Republicans are afraid that they cannot win the Senate back through the Will of the People?

Strange that anyone would be against the People selecting who is in leadership rolls within Our Government, yes, much better to let another arm of the Government, state legislatures, decide what is best for us.....

Pass on this one.

Not gonna happen.
 
mandatory retirement at 65.....for both the House and Senate


CASPER said:
Is the reason for this suggestion because the Republicans are afraid that they cannot win the Senate back through the Will of the People?
Click to expand...

I think the reason is the obvious failure in leadership.....
 
CASPER said:
Is the reason for this suggestion because the Republicans are afraid that they cannot win the Senate back through the Will of the People?

Strange that anyone would be against the People selecting who is in leadership rolls within Our Government, yes, much better to let another arm of the Government, state legislatures, decide what is best for us.....

Pass on this one.

Not gonna happen.
Click to expand...


Conservatives hate democracy.
 
Ban all Lobbyists, once the money is out of the equation they might actually work for the American People again instead of who brings the biggest suitcase full of money to them.
 
BidenPresident said:
Good point. Knowingly contemptuous of our nation.
Click to expand...

How is it "contemptuous" to not want mob rule? How is a desire for division of power within government bad? What makes a Republic and indirect democracy bad as opposed to the direct democracy you and the Left seem to want--at least until you are in power?

You can vote your way into Socialism, but you have to shoot your way out of it.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
How is it "contemptuous" to not want mob rule? How is a desire for division of power within government bad? What makes a Republic and indirect democracy bad as opposed to the direct democracy you and the Left seem to want--at least until you are in power?

You can vote your way into Socialism, but you have to shoot your way out of it.
Click to expand...

lost interest in your nonsense
 
T. A. Gardner said:
In the last couple of decades the US Senate has become less and less capable of getting anything done. What would you do to fix it.

Me?

Abolish the 17th Amendment and return to the previous appointment of Senators by state governors and legislators.

The filibuster, as it stands today could be abolished. But that won't fix much. The Democrats would have a very temporary and fleeting advantage doing that now. In 2022, the Senate could very well flip back to a Republican majority. Then they get a turn using the Democrat change on them--likely much to their vocal protests.

On the other hand, eliminating the direct election of Senators returns the power of the Senate to the States. That gives states a much larger voice in the federal government--why it was originally done that way.
I'm sure some will protest that is not "democratic" in that it takes the election of Senators away from the People. Good. The House is there to represent the People. That's it's job. The Senate should never have become what amounts to a second House. Instead, the Senate is there to represent the States and the government of those states (which are chosen by the people of that state).

If this were done, it would return the Senate to a body that responds to the various states, not a rubber stamp by party of the House like it is now. Eliminating the filibuster just completes the transition of the Senate into a second House meaning it no longer has any real or valid purpose to exist as a separate entity.
Click to expand...

How is being directly elected by a State’s citizenry that much different from being appointed by representatives who were elected by the State’s citizenry? Seems the later would lead to party cronyism, lot of individuals owed IOUs finding their way to the Senate
 
Senate has fallen victim to extreme partisanship, it is basically useless today

“pp” above had the best idea, create term limits, when restricted to say two terms, you won’t get the dinosaurs we see today and Senators won’t have to spend half their time trying to get elected by catering to, and making sure not to offend, fringe groups who can effect their reelection
 
archives said:
How is being directly elected by a State’s citizenry that much different from being appointed by representatives who were elected by the State’s citizenry? Seems the later would lead to party cronyism, lot of individuals owed IOUs finding their way to the Senate
Click to expand...

Quite different. For example, here in Arizona there is a Republican governor and legislature, yet the state has two Democrat Senators. The two senators, particularly Mark Kelly, often vote against the positions and interests of the state's government. That's a local example.

On the whole, the appointment system worked as well or better than a direct vote. For one, it ensured a different mix of parties in the Senate than the House. Direct election changed that to the two houses of Congress having more similar make ups and being politically beholden to the same bloc of people. Direct election did nothing to change cronyism, political pandering, and all the other shenanigans of politicians. If anything, it increased them as Senators now have to spend considerable time and effort fund raising and campaigning for election.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Quite different. For example, here in Arizona there is a Republican governor and legislature, yet the state has two Democrat Senators. The two senators, particularly Mark Kelly, often vote against the positions and interests of the state's government. That's a local example.

On the whole, the appointment system worked as well or better than a direct vote. For one, it ensured a different mix of parties in the Senate than the House. Direct election changed that to the two houses of Congress having more similar make ups and being politically beholden to the same bloc of people. Direct election did nothing to change cronyism, political pandering, and all the other shenanigans of politicians. If anything, it increased them as Senators now have to spend considerable time and effort fund raising and campaigning for election.
Click to expand...

Carrying that further, than why even vote for State Legislatures? Let the Governor pick representatives, then everyone will be on the same page

The State citizens as a whole voted for Kelly, so obviously they see him as representing their interests, if he fails them, they vote him out, he is there to serve them not the State Government

In order for what you see as an improvement, you would need a change to the Constitution, which you know ain’t happening
 
T. A. Gardner said:
In the last couple of decades the US Senate has become less and less capable of getting anything done. What would you do to fix it.

Me?

Abolish the 17th Amendment and return to the previous appointment of Senators by state governors and legislators.

The filibuster, as it stands today could be abolished. But that won't fix much. The Democrats would have a very temporary and fleeting advantage doing that now. In 2022, the Senate could very well flip back to a Republican majority. Then they get a turn using the Democrat change on them--likely much to their vocal protests.

On the other hand, eliminating the direct election of Senators returns the power of the Senate to the States. That gives states a much larger voice in the federal government--why it was originally done that way.
I'm sure some will protest that is not "democratic" in that it takes the election of Senators away from the People. Good. The House is there to represent the People. That's it's job. The Senate should never have become what amounts to a second House. Instead, the Senate is there to represent the States and the government of those states (which are chosen by the people of that state).

If this were done, it would return the Senate to a body that responds to the various states, not a rubber stamp by party of the House like it is now. Eliminating the filibuster just completes the transition of the Senate into a second House meaning it no longer has any real or valid purpose to exist as a separate entity.
Click to expand...


The same argument can be made about popular votes for presidential electors. That was never intended.

One reason for the 17th Amendment was because of the corruption of buying Senate seats. A more recent example is illustrated by Rod Blagojevich and Obama's vacant Senate seat.
 
Flash said:
The same argument can be made about popular votes for presidential electors. That was never intended.

One reason for the 17th Amendment was because of the corruption of buying Senate seats. A more recent example is illustrated by Rod Blagojevich and Obama's vacant Senate seat.
Click to expand...


You Republicans are authoritarians.
 
I don't see the need for a bicameral legislature at all.
The constitution has its good points, but it gave us a genuinely stupid and grossly inefficient form of government.
Modern democracies get things done.
We're pathetic.
 
What would you do to make the Senate "work" again?

Oh that's an easy question- VOTE EVERY ONE OF THE REPUBLICAN ANTAGONISTS AND OBJECTIONISTS Of SELF-INTEREST AND SELF-IMPORTANCE OUT OF OFFICE!

2022 can't get here soon enough!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top