on the filibuster

[Riot]

I really like the proposals for a decreasing amount of votes necessary for cloture over time. That means fillibuster can occur, but limits the neverending obstructionism.

I thought the article good, but the argument flawed. The Senate isn't supposed to represent majority population rule. Two votes per state, regardless of population.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Riot

I thought the article good, but the argument flawed. The Senate isn't supposed to represent majority population rule. Two votes per state, regardless of population.

That's immoral. They can call it what they want, but they aren't treating Americans alike. The fact we don't seem to think it's wrong just shows how elitist we are as a society. That's a dog-waste design. It's no wonder it's failing. You get what you deserve for putting up with it. It's wrong. I don't care how much they try to brainwash you people into buying into it. It's wrong. It's never gunna be moral to give Americans in certain parts of America more say than other Americans. It's right in front of you. It's dead wrong. Simply an immoral design, because you own it, you're gunna overlook it. We have an immoral design, and we wonder why it's not working. When somethings not fair, then people don't respect it, and it won't work. It's sooooooo much more just to have 36% stop this guy. Founding Fathers just so fkn brilliant, huh.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

That's immoral. They can call it what they want, but they aren't treating Americans alike. The fact we don't seem to think it's wrong just shows how elitist we are as a society. That's a dog-waste design. It's no wonder it's failing. You get what you deserve for putting up with it. It's wrong. I don't care how much they try to brainwash you people into buying into it. It's wrong. It's never gunna be moral to give Americans in certain parts of America more say than other Americans. It's right in front of you. It's dead wrong. Simply an immoral design, because you own it, you're gunna overlook it. We have an immoral design, and we wonder why it's not working. When somethings not fair, then people don't respect it, and it won't work. It's sooooooo much more just to have 36% stop this guy. Founding Fathers just so fkn brilliant, huh.

I actually like gridlock because I don't like either party. I think the Republicans are probably the lesser of two evils but it's a close call.

I wouldn't want either party to be able to do whatever they want to do. Even if the Republicans had a simple majority, I wouldn't want them to be able to pass whatever legislation they like. I wouldn't trust them to do the right thing.

Needing 60 votes to get anything done is a good thing. It forces compromise. I hope that neither party ever has 60 seats in the Senate. I wouldn't want either party to have full control.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I actually like gridlock because I don't like either party. I think the Republicans are probably the lesser of two evils but it's a close call.

I wouldn't want either party to be able to do whatever they want to do. Even if the Republicans had a simple majority, I wouldn't want them to be able to pass whatever legislation they like. I wouldn't trust them to do the right thing.

Needing 60 votes to get anything done is a good thing. It forces compromise. I hope that neither party ever has 60 seats in the Senate. I wouldn't want either party to have full control.

Totally agree with this post.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I actually like gridlock because I don't like either party. I think the Republicans are probably the lesser of two evils but it's a close call.

me too, I feel great when there's gridlock.

It's when they're getting things done that I really get concerned.

like we sometimes say about a horse, "they've done enough"

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

That's immoral. They can call it what they want, but they aren't treating Americans alike. The fact we don't seem to think it's wrong just shows how elitist we are as a society. That's a dog-waste design. It's no wonder it's failing. You get what you deserve for putting up with it. It's wrong. I don't care how much they try to brainwash you people into buying into it. It's wrong. It's never gunna be moral to give Americans in certain parts of America more say than other Americans. It's right in front of you. It's dead wrong. Simply an immoral design, because you own it, you're gunna overlook it. We have an immoral design, and we wonder why it's not working. When somethings not fair, then people don't respect it, and it won't work. It's sooooooo much more just to have 36% stop this guy. Founding Fathers just so fkn brilliant, huh.

Naturally if you knew of or understood history you would have some sense of why the system was designed as it is. Seemingly in your perfect world we would just have an opinion poll that dictated our laws. Maybe the political version of Sportsnation? Because that show is working out so well...

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Naturally if you knew of or understood history you would have some sense of why the system was designed as it is. Seemingly in your perfect world we would just have an opinion poll that dictated our laws. Maybe the political version of Sportsnation? Because that show is working out so well...

I agree. Suggest to SCUDS that he review the history of why the Constitution sets up this bicameral system for the legislative body.

As we all might remember from history class, the House of Representatives is the body set up to implement representation in a way proportional to the population in each state. This would obviously give the largest states at any time most of the power on legislative issues. Had this been the only legislature, the smaller states would not have signed the Constitution.

The Senate has 2 votes per state because the view that competes with population-based representation is one based on each state's sovreignty. All states are considered to have the same level of sovreignty -- especially when drafting the Constitution where unanimous approval was needed.

These two different approaches, with both being vital to getting legislation through, is intended to give both types of states -- large and small, a place where they are strong enough to influence legislation. It is designed to maximize stability and provide checks and balances within the legislative branch. This is in addition to the checks and balances between the legislative, executive and judicial branches.

The system is the best we will ever have, whatever the frustrations one party or other may have in the present. Interestingly enough -- political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, and Washington warned in his farewell address that they ought never have too much power.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I agree. Suggest to SCUDS that he review the history of why the Constitution sets up this bicameral system for the legislative body.

As we all might remember from history class, the House of Representatives is the body set up to implement representation in a way proportional to the population in each state. This would obviously give the largest states at any time most of the power on legislative issues. Had this been the only legislature, the smaller states would not have signed the Constitution.

The Senate has 2 votes per state because the view that competes with population-based representation is one based on each state's sovreignty. All states are considered to have the same level of sovreignty -- especially when drafting the Constitution where unanimous approval was needed.

These two different approaches, with both being vital to getting legislation through, is intended to give both types of states -- large and small, a place where they are strong enough to influence legislation. It is designed to maximize stability and provide checks and balances within the legislative branch. This is in addition to the checks and balances between the legislative, executive and judicial branches.

The system is the best we will ever have, whatever the frustrations one party or other may have in the present. Interestingly enough -- political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, and Washington warned in his farewell address that they ought never have too much power.

Actually unanimous approval was not needed in either the convention (where three delegates refused to sign the finished document) or in the ratification process. Only nine of the thirteen states needed to ratify the Constitution in order for it to become operative (see Article VII).

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Actually unanimous approval was not needed in either the convention (where three delegates refused to sign the finished document) or in the ratification process. Only nine of the thirteen states needed to ratify the Constitution in order for it to become operative (see Article VII).

I stand corrected. I do remember reading that the delegates thought it was important to get unanimous support if possible, as this was to be the highest law of the land. But you're right, and I'll try to remember that 9 out of 13 was the number.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by joeydb

The system is the best we will ever have, whatever the frustrations one party or other may have in the present. Interestingly enough -- political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, and Washington warned in his farewell address that they ought never have too much power.

Too much power? You've forced the guy to get 65% of the population's Senators to get anything passed. The advantages given your party with these cute rationalizations is obscene. That's what allows you to lie about what Americans want, or don't want. Just fess up to it (instead of misleading everyone into thinking it's a fair system.) He got elected with 53.4% of the voters ballots. He didn't get 65% of the populations support, but you're making him get 65% of the population's senators. Good trick. Can't do it. Must have failed ideas. Couldn't be your lil tricks n' advantages coming into play. That 41 Senators keeping filibusters going only represent 36% of our population. You should all remember that before you keep talking about how "the public" is for, or against him. This is mainly a parlor trick combining two bad parts of a fkd up design. You don't trick me one bit. The American People are with him, but the senate unfairly represents the American People. Then you go out n' act like the senate is the American people. It isn't. It's represents the views of a few elite Americans. Everyone admits it favors some Americans over others. So, don't act like all Americans decided to turn the guy down. Only 41% of a biased pool (hillbillies get preferential treatment) were required to be against him. Not "The American People." There's a 11.95% group of Americans getting only a 2% say in that senate. So, don't tell me it's a fair thing going on. It's not America. It's America's embarrassment. Amazing how you're against special preferences until it comes to something that favors you. Then it's all good.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Naturally if you knew of or understood history you would have some sense of why the system was designed as it is. Seemingly in your perfect world we would just have an opinion poll that dictated our laws. Maybe the political version of Sportsnation? Because that show is working out so well...

Happened because idiots got their way in a 5-4 vote. They had the correct way (Virginia Plan) right in front of them, and blew it. They decided to take away the power of the typical voter in Virginia, and give it to the typical voter in Rhode Island. Wrong then, and wrong now. It's still immoral. Americans do immoral things, and rationalize them. Then, the biggest difference in population was 10x. Now it's 70x, but you cling to this as if they'd be for it today (wrong.) Anyone with a fair brain can see the problem, but there really aren't that many fair brains. We had an election. The President got 53.4% of American voters ballots. I have no problem with a check on the majority, but not a 65% requirement. The wreck called the U.S. Senate is badly biased towards certain elite citizens who happen to be in smaller population states, but a certain party is forcing filibuster for almost everything. This is not typical. It's never been used this much, but seems the election of a Negro President has resulted in the American people not giving a damn that it's been used over 100 times (absurd.) Combine a biased pool with a 60% requirement has resulted in requiring a President to get 65% of the American Population's Senators to pass anything. Now, as you can see on the posts above, people want their cake n' eat it too. They like gridlock that this 60% of a trick pool has resulted in, but they also want to complain that the leader isn't doing anything to solve problems (as I said, Americans do immoral things, n' rationalize them.) The filibuster combined with the biased Senate pool is a doubling of the check on the power of the majority.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Here is the result of the immoral way of handing out senate seats. A person from:

California is 497% less represented than they should be....Immoral

Texas is 290% less represented than they should be....Immoral

New York is 215% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Florida is 198% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Illinois is 110% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Penn is 103% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Ohio is 87.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Mich is 64.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Georgia is 56% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

NC is 54% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

NJ is 42% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Virginia is 26% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Wash is 5.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Mass is 5.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

AZ is 3.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Ind. is 3.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Tenn. is 0.5% less represented than they should be.

Missouri gets 4.16% Overrepresented

Maryland 8.7% Overrepresented

Wiscon. gets 9.3% Overrepresented

MINN 18%Overrepresented

COL 26% Overrepresented

ALA 32% Overrepresented

SC 39% Overrepresented

LOU 43% Overrepresented

KENTUCKY 44% Overrepresented (you can see why Cannon's for this cheating.)

Oregon 63% Overrepresented

O.K. 69% Overrepresented

Conn 74% Overrepresented

IOWA 104% Overrepresented

MISS 111% Overrepresented

ARK 115% ...Overrepresented
That's right, Zig, you get 115% more say than you should (just because you're in a certain favored location in America.) Oh, how easy it is to rationalize evil when it works in your favor.

Kansas 120% Overrepresented


Utah 130% Overrepresented


Nev 138% Overrepresented


NM 212.5% Overrepresented

WV 239% Overrepresented

NEB 245% Overrepresented

ID 308% Overrepresented

ME 365% Overrepresented

NH 365% Overrepresented

HAWAII 376% Overrepresented

R.I. 471% Overrepresented

MONTANA 545% Overrepresented

DEL 614% Overrepresented

SD 669% Overrepresented

AK 809% Overrepresented

ND 852% Overrepresented

VER 900% Overrepresented

WYO 1076% Overrepresented

544 thousand people in Wyoming get a total of 2 senators.

36.96 million people in California get a total of 2 senators.

That's a 70x difference in representation for the citizens involved.

Only Americans can couch up some lame rationalization for this elitism. Don't live in a certain unfavored area. You'll get screwed. Giving citizens varying amounts of representation is wrong, and there is no rationalization that can make it right.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Here is the result of the immoral way of handing out senate seats. A person from:

California is 497% less represented than they should be....Immoral

Texas is 290% less represented than they should be....Immoral

New York is 215% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Florida is 198% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Illinois is 110% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Penn is 103% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Ohio is 87.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Mich is 64.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Georgia is 56% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

NC is 54% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

NJ is 42% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Virginia is 26% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Wash is 5.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Mass is 5.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

AZ is 3.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Ind. is 3.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Tenn. is 0.5% less represented than they should be.

Missouri gets 4.16% Overrepresented

Maryland 8.7% Overrepresented

Wiscon. gets 9.3% Overrepresented

MINN 18%Overrepresented

COL 26% Overrepresented

ALA 32% Overrepresented

SC 39% Overrepresented

LOU 43% Overrepresented

KENTUCKY 44% Overrepresented (you can see why Cannon's for this cheating.)

Oregon 63% Overrepresented

O.K. 69% Overrepresented

Conn 74% Overrepresented

IOWA 104% Overrepresented

MISS 111% Overrepresented

ARK 115% ...Overrepresented
That's right, Zig, you get 115% more say than you should (just because you're in a certain favored location in America.) Oh, how easy it is to rationalize evil when it works in your favor.

Kansas 120% Overrepresented


Utah 130% Overrepresented


Nev 138% Overrepresented


NM 212.5% Overrepresented

WV 239% Overrepresented

NEB 245% Overrepresented

ID 308% Overrepresented

ME 365% Overrepresented

NH 365% Overrepresented

HAWAII 376% Overrepresented

R.I. 471% Overrepresented

MONTANA 545% Overrepresented

DEL 614% Overrepresented

SD 669% Overrepresented

AK 809% Overrepresented

ND 852% Overrepresented

VER 900% Overrepresented

WYO 1076% Overrepresented

544 thousand people in Wyoming get a total of 2 senators.

36.96 million people in California get a total of 2 senators.

That's a 70x difference in representation for the citizens involved.

Only Americans can couch up some lame rationalization for this elitism. Don't live in a certain unfavored area. You'll get screwed. Giving citizens varying amounts of representation is wrong, and there is no rationalization that can make it right.

you're completely ignoring half of the legislative body! the house is based on population, or do you just conveniently ignore that??
i think you need to go back to civics class.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you're completely ignoring half of the legislative body! the house is based on population, or do you just conveniently ignore that??
i think you need to go back to civics class.

I don't think that a person needs to "go back to civics class" just because they disagree with the way Senate seats are apportioned. I certainly understand why the Senate was constructed the way it was - much as I understand why the electoral college was created - but that doesn't mean I can't wish that these things could be changed now.
After all, there is also a reason that state legislatures (rather than voters) were the ones who elected U.S. Senators for decades in this country. Eventually people made the case that this system was undemocratic and should therefore be changed (which it obviously was). Something tells me that if DT had been around at that time, and someone came on here and argued that voters rather than state legislatures should elect U.S. senators.....they would have been told that they must just not understand why the always brilliant authors of the Constitution set up the system the way they did, and if they wanted to make that change they might as well decide everything by having an opinion poll.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you're completely ignoring half of the legislative body! the house is based on population, or do you just conveniently ignore that??
i think you need to go back to civics class.

What matters is the least widest part of the pipe (Senate.) I'm ignoring it (H.R.,) because it is not the excuse (for the immoral Senate Design) that you think it is. That's a totally fair situation (H OF R.) Why would anyone have a problem with that legislative body? God forbid we all get the same representation for our taxation. Wow. It doesn't somehow balance out the evil done to some citizens in the Senate. Why should I act like it does? Brainwashing? Didn't take. Just because I learned all this stuff in Civics Class, doesn't mean I think it's a fair way to do it. I think that's where we disagree. You think just because you get some weird immoral rationalization in Civics Class, then you need to buy into it. Civics Class gives you the rationalization for the bad design. IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S CORRECT. They counted slaves as 3/5 citizens. Do you buy into that just because you read it in Civics Class? I ignored the House of Rep, because it is not the balance weight you people state it to be. Someone in a large state is simply equally represented in that body. That, in no way, is a balance to giving some Americans more say in the Senate than other Americans. There is no balance here. That is simply flawed thinking that people follow like sheep. They aren't the lil beautiful oil n' vinegar balancing combo that you're brainwashed into thinking it is.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you're completely ignoring half of the legislative body! the house is based on population, or do you just conveniently ignore that??
i think you need to go back to civics class.

Exactly. I was going to post something very similar, but I see now I don't have to. SCUDS apparently thinks that both houses of Congress need to be population based, in which case we would need both, would we?

[Patrick333]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Here is the result of the immoral way of handing out senate seats. A person from:

California is 497% less represented than they should be....Immoral

Texas is 290% less represented than they should be....Immoral

New York is 215% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Florida is 198% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Illinois is 110% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Penn is 103% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Ohio is 87.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Mich is 64.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Georgia is 56% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

NC is 54% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

NJ is 42% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Virginia is 26% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Wash is 5.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Mass is 5.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

AZ is 3.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Ind. is 3.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Tenn. is 0.5% less represented than they should be.

Missouri gets 4.16% Overrepresented

Maryland 8.7% Overrepresented

Wiscon. gets 9.3% Overrepresented

MINN 18%Overrepresented

COL 26% Overrepresented

ALA 32% Overrepresented

SC 39% Overrepresented

LOU 43% Overrepresented

KENTUCKY 44% Overrepresented (you can see why Cannon's for this cheating.)

Oregon 63% Overrepresented

O.K. 69% Overrepresented

Conn 74% Overrepresented

IOWA 104% Overrepresented

MISS 111% Overrepresented

ARK 115% ...Overrepresented
That's right, Zig, you get 115% more say than you should (just because you're in a certain favored location in America.) Oh, how easy it is to rationalize evil when it works in your favor.

Kansas 120% Overrepresented


Utah 130% Overrepresented


Nev 138% Overrepresented


NM 212.5% Overrepresented

WV 239% Overrepresented

NEB 245% Overrepresented

ID 308% Overrepresented

ME 365% Overrepresented

NH 365% Overrepresented

HAWAII 376% Overrepresented

R.I. 471% Overrepresented

MONTANA 545% Overrepresented

DEL 614% Overrepresented

SD 669% Overrepresented

AK 809% Overrepresented

ND 852% Overrepresented

VER 900% Overrepresented

WYO 1076% Overrepresented

544 thousand people in Wyoming get a total of 2 senators.

36.96 million people in California get a total of 2 senators.

That's a 70x difference in representation for the citizens involved.

Only Americans can couch up some lame rationalization for this elitism. Don't live in a certain unfavored area. You'll get screwed. Giving citizens varying amounts of representation is wrong, and there is no rationalization that can make it right.

Gee whiz, New Jersey is under represented? Probably could correct that number if they let some of our politicians out of jail.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

That's immoral. They can call it what they want, but they aren't treating Americans alike.

Congress is where Americans are represented by their numbers. The Senate represents "the States", not those states' populations.

That said, I agree with all you said about the Dems being pussies. The only one who has remotely stood up lately is the President, and the Dems are not even following his lead. The Dems have the mandate, and they are blowing it.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Congress is where Americans are represented by their numbers. The Senate represents "the States", not those states' populations.

That said, I agree with all you said about the Dems being pussies. The only one who has remotely stood up lately is the President, and the Dems are not even following his lead. The Dems have the mandate, and they are blowing it.

Congress is both the House and the Senate. The House is the one based on population, and the Senate based upon equal shares of U.S. sovreignty -- which reduces to 2 votes per state.

The Dems do not have a mandate. They were the "not Bush" party when Bush was no longer running, and the emotional population put them in the majority. In two years time, most of the people who voted Democratic have realized that the Dem's agenda sucks, at least for the working people who pay the tax dollars that Congress spends. They will rightfully and soundly be pounded at the polls in November.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

The Dems do not have a mandate.

Well, actually, yes, they do indeed have the electoral mandate. In the Executive Branch, in the Congress [House of Reps to make Joey happy], in the Senate.

I just posted today's Rasmussen poll over in your other thread (your poll thread) that shows the Dems - for today at least - clearly in the lead.