John Dingall - Democrat, wants to abolish the entire Senate

[columbus]

We have just one house parliament

That's what I want.
Not some fake Roman political entity designed to protect slavery.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

That's what I want.
Not some fake Roman political entity designed to protect slavery.
Tom

Careful there about letting history define something in the present.
After all, you voted to put the pro-slavery party in charge.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I never quite grasped the difference between senate and congress in the two party system. Not that I really tried mind you. We have just one house parliament and multiple parties. Democracy doesn't exactly go away with having just one parliament...

It does go away with only one political party, however...

The Founders were trying to resolve a problem: there were (then) 13 states, each of which had an equal vote under the Articles of Confederation. There were a number of issues where the states with the least population could block policy. There were other proposals where the largest population states could impose their preferences on the smaller states.

The compromise solution was a House of Representatives elected by the people (at the time, White Male Property owners, about 15 percent of the population) based on same-sized population divisions within each state, with the smallest states ensured of having at least 1 representative, each serving a term of two years before re-election. Thus, the voters were represented.

The other half of the solution was a Senate with two Senators from each state, each serving for six years. Originally, these were appointed by the leaders of the state, but later this was amended to allow direct popular vote of Senators.

The theory being that the interest of The People and the interest of The States would be separated and act as a check on each other.

 

[sun rise]

Careful there about letting history define something in the present.
After all, you voted to put the pro-slavery party in charge.

You need to historically root such comments since the parties have swapped positions starting at the time of the "Southern Strategy"

 

[Revoltingest]

You need to historically root such comments since the parties have swapped positions starting at the time of the "Southern Strategy"

You're missing the point of my warning our friend.
He'd make our government's structure out to be pro-slavery
because of history. He is hoist by his own petard.
Also, there was no swap regarding slavery...the Democrats
were pro, but the Republicans never were.

 

[columbus]

After all, you voted to put the pro-slavery party in charge.

Careful there about letting history define something in the present.

Beings how you're Scottish, I can't blame you for the ignorance of this post.

It's because you are a wealthy white educated American that I blame you for the ignorance of that post.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Beings how you're Scottish, I can't blame you for the ignorance of this post.

It's because you are a wealthy white educated American that I blame you for the ignorance of that post.
Tom

Such racism.
I thought better of you.
But it's also hard to discern when I'm being Poed.
So....
Bless your heart.

 

[columbus]

Such racism.

Ah...
So you and @Epic Beard Man have finally come to some common ground.
"Tom is a racist."

Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah...
So you and @Epic Beard Man have finally come to some common ground.
"Tom is a racist."

Tom

Well, I spoke only to the post.
(I know the rules.)
But consider why you chose that particular ad hominem.

 

[columbus]

Well, I spoke only to the post.

You did not speak to the post.
You edited out most of it and responded to a strawman.

You could probably get back on my good side by bending over and flipping your kilt, again.

Considering what I get away with on RF, it's likely in your own best interests.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

You did not speak to the post.
You edited out most of it and responded to a strawman.

You could probably get back on my good side by bending over and flipping your kilt, again.

Considering what I get away with on RF, it's likely in your own best interests.
Tom

I didn't edit out anything in post #67.
So I stand by my posts.

Do you have a good side?
Just kidding!

 

[Twilight Hue]

You need to historically root such comments since the parties have swapped positions starting at the time of the "Southern Strategy"

But they willingly chose to retain the southern name with all the implications and baggage that comes with it. 'Democrat'. One look into the Jim Crow era will tell you exactly what party voted for what. I'm not buying that lame tripe anymore.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I never quite grasped the difference between senate and congress in the two party system. Not that I really tried mind you. We have just one house parliament and multiple parties. Democracy doesn't exactly go away with having just one parliament...

Dont even parliaments have something like the House of Commons and House of Lords? Unless I'm wrong I've always figured that would be the equivalent of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

 

[metis]

As far as the OP is concerned, I'm for that. People are real whereas states are entirely artificial.

 

[Shad]

What we could do is every 10 years have a computer redraw all of the district lines using a random algorithm, and it should prefer districts to be as rectangular as possible.

The Senate is based on States not districts.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The Senate is based on States not districts.

I don't care about that so much as the voting precincts which are engineered carefully by political parties. This would improve things. Getting rid of the senate is nuts. Improve what we have.

 

[Shad]

It pretty much speaks for itself.

It makes me wonder what Mr. Dingell would have thought had the Democrats took the Senate and Republicans retained the House.

John Dingell's plan for America? Let's abolish the U.S. Senate

It's a head-scratcher considering his military service, age and experience in government as to why he would come across such a ridiculous notion.

All I can think of is encroaching senility and loss of political vision, being he's been a politician for so long. It's my opinion he obviously lost touch which is why I'm more in favor of term limits as opposed to restructuring of government itself.

Either way, I'm pretty sure it wasn't what the founding fathers would have wanted in terms of a having or promoting a centralized government (which is what I think modern Democrats are shooting for in the first place) which is why we have the House and Senate in the first place I would think.

What are your thoughts about it?

His argument for the Senate in the past is no different than for the present. He just decided to ignore it. Ironically many of the "good" bills that die in the Senate did so due to the Dems, his own party.

 

[Shad]

I don't care about that so much as the voting precincts which are engineered carefully by political parties. This would improve things

That is the House. Gerrymandering is a major problem along with the slow pace of change by government regarding population changes

Getting rid of the senate is nuts.

I do not think his idea is nuts. I think his idea is self-serving for him and his party as he omits key details such as his party being guilty of killing Bills in the Senate. He blames the Senate instead of members of his own party voting against said "good" Bills.

 

[Shad]

I never quite grasped the difference between senate and congress in the two party system.

The Senate is part of Congress not separate from it. It is the upper house of the legislation branch while the House is the lower house of that same branch.

We have just one house parliament and multiple parties. Democracy doesn't exactly go away with having just one parliament...

Where are you from?

A lot of parliaments have an upper and lower houses. In the UK there is the commons and lords. In Canada there is the Senate which is the upper house while MPs are in the lower. Having two houses in parliament in a common feature.

 

[Jumi]

The theory being that the interest of The People and the interest of The States would be separated and act as a check on each other.

Yeah that seems reasonable given the time and that they were independent states coming together. The history part of it makes sense.