Senate term lenght

[republicanism]

Though Sanchez would possibly be right if congressional districts weren't so heavily gerrymandered.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If we're discussing Senate elimination at all, why not to just add two Congressmen elected at-large to every state, in place of Senators?

[minionofmidas]

Oh, and it should be elected by the state legislatures again.

I have never understood why anybody wants this.

The idea was that the Senate would be a body that acted to preserve the power of the States and help keep the Federal government weak. 

It has never worked that way, though. The way to do that would be to give the federal government (all branches) very few powers. And make the Senators directly dependent on continued support of their state governments. And, most crucially of all, to not have any states too small to fill their then-larger shoes in the first place.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Oh, and it should be elected by the state legislatures again.

I have never understood why anybody wants this.

The idea was that the Senate would be a body that acted to preserve the power of the States and help keep the Federal government weak.  Of course, people who think having a weak Federal government is a bad idea don't like the idea of a Senate.

I'm aware of this but I really don't understand why giving that power back to state legislatures should somehow weaken the Federal government, as opposed to just making it less accountable. The amount of corruption and wheeling-dealing that went on over Senate seats before the 17th Amendment...if you think it's bad now, those days scarcely bear thinking about.

[Paul Kemp]

Six years per term, twelve years total.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Six years per term, twelve years total.

Like.

[J. J.]

Fine, but there should be three members for each state, so that every state has a Senate election for every cycle.

Agreed.  Either this or back to indirect elections.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Six years per term, twelve years total.

Term limits fan, huh?

[Paul Kemp]

Six years per term, twelve years total.

Term limits fan, huh?

You get an A+ for Reading Comprehension!

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

6 years is just right. But it should be limited to 2 or 3 terms, to keep all the corrupt people like Storm Thurmond and Robert Byrd out of the senate.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Oh, and it should be elected by the state legislatures again.

I have never understood why anybody wants this.

The idea was that the Senate would be a body that acted to preserve the power of the States and help keep the Federal government weak.  Of course, people who think having a weak Federal government is a bad idea don't like the idea of a Senate.

I'm aware of this but I really don't understand why giving that power back to state legislatures should somehow weaken the Federal government, as opposed to just making it less accountable. The amount of corruption and wheeling-dealing that went on over Senate seats before the 17th Amendment...if you think it's bad now, those days scarcely bear thinking about.

The only noticeable difference is when the Senators prostitute themselves, and how open they are about it.

I agree not everything worked as the Framers intended.  The only reason to accord them any priority in Constitutional interpretation is because we have a mechanism to amend the Constitution, and I much rather use that mechanism than have a simple majority of the Supreme Court "amend" a living Constitution.

My personal preference for the Senate would be to make Senators directly accountable to the States and only require their assent in passing laws if they directly impact the States in some fashion.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

My personal preference for the Senate would be to make Senators directly accountable to the States and only require their assent in passing laws if they directly impact the States in some fashion.

Kind like a Bundesrat, Ernest?

I certainly wouldn't like Senators elected by a legislature to enjoy the same jurisdiction, like currently. It should be up to the representatives of the people, not legislatures, with their narrow, particular interests, to decide about things like treaties, cabinet and judicial nominations, etc.

[greenforest32]

Bleah to term limits and state legislatures choosing Senators.

Why shouldn't I be able to vote for the same person election after election if I approve of him? The only reason we have the 22nd Amendment (2-term limit for President) is because everyone was mad at FDR winning 4 terms in a row.

And why should state legislatures choose senators? What do Senators represent? States. What are states? People. They get disproportionate influence because there are 2 senators per state regardless of population but it doesn't mean they don't represent states because they're elected by the people in those states.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Bleah to term limits and state legislatures choosing Senators.

Why shouldn't I be able to vote for the same person election after election if I approve of him? The only reason we have the 22nd Amendment (2-term limit for President) is because everyone was mad at FDR winning 4 terms in a row.

And why should state legislatures choose senators? What do Senators represent? States. What are states? People. They get disproportionate influence because there are 2 senators per state regardless of population but it doesn't mean they don't represent states because they're elected by the people in those states.

This.  We already have term limits; they're called elections.  FDR was a good president, so they prohibit people like him from being able to serve longer even if it's what so many Americans would want?  Yeah, makes real sense.

Senators and congressmen serve for a long time because a) people like them, or b) the corporations help them.

[TheGlobalizer]

Just right, I like the off-(presidential)-cycle elections.

[opebo]

I would prefer a House of Lords with life-time terms passed from father to first-born son.  If the line were extinguished through death or only female progeny, the Lords could elect a replacement from among the lesser nobles.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I would prefer a House of Lords with life-time terms passed from father to first-born son.  If the line were extinguished through death or only female progeny, the Lords could elect a replacement from among the lesser nobles.

Why do you hate cognatic primogeniture?

[opebo]

I would prefer a House of Lords with life-time terms passed from father to first-born son.  If the line were extinguished through death or only female progeny, the Lords could elect a replacement from among the lesser nobles.

Why do you hate cognatic primogeniture?

Isn't it obvious?  It involves female rulers.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I would prefer a House of Lords with life-time terms passed from father to first-born son.  If the line were extinguished through death or only female progeny, the Lords could elect a replacement from among the lesser nobles.

Why do you hate cognatic primogeniture?

Isn't it obvious?  It involves female rulers.

Yeah, that's what makes it better than agnatic, not worse.

[opebo]

Why do you hate cognatic primogeniture?

Isn't it obvious?  It involves female rulers.

Yeah, that's what makes it better than agnatic, not worse.

Good lord man, where were you raised?  In a monastery?  Have you not met any of the female?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why do you hate cognatic primogeniture?

Isn't it obvious?  It involves female rulers.

Yeah, that's what makes it better than agnatic, not worse.

Good lord man, where were you raised?  In a monastery?  Have you not met any of the female?

I was raised by my mother and my aunt. An entirely disproportionate number of my friends are women. They're not a monolithic mass.

[opebo]

I was raised by my mother and my aunt. An entirely disproportionate number of my friends are women. They're not a monolithic mass.

Well, I thought about making a fat joke there, but I'll confine myself to pointing out that they all want to castrate you buddy.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I was raised by my mother and my aunt. An entirely disproportionate number of my friends are women. They're not a monolithic mass.

Well, I thought about making a fat joke there, but I'll confine myself to pointing out that they all want to castrate you buddy.

1. No they don't.
2. Only one of the people I'm thinking of here is actually fat, and she's my best friend.
3. Even if they did want to castrate me I wouldn't particularly mind, since it's halfway done already just by dint of my personality. If they wanted to castrate someone else, depending on the person I might help them.

[opebo]

3. Even if they did want to castrate me I wouldn't particularly mind, since it's halfway done already just by dint of my personality. If they wanted to castrate someone else, depending on the person I might help them.

You're the Perfect Man!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

3. Even if they did want to castrate me I wouldn't particularly mind, since it's halfway done already just by dint of my personality. If they wanted to castrate someone else, depending on the person I might help them.

You're the Perfect Man!

I guess you could look at it that way. The other way would be to say that I've reached the point of being a man in biology only. Either way, I'm content.

And it still doesn't have anything to do with women in positions of political power. I might actually support the introduction of incorporeal hereditaments into systems that don't currently have them but only as long as they were cognatic.