The 101st Senator.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:24:06 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  The 101st Senator.
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The 101st Senator.  (Read 3694 times)
retromike22
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,433
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 17, 2011, 04:17:11 PM »

I've always thought it odd that the position of the Vice President exists. It's not a well defined position other than "back-up President." Probably the most important power they have to break a tie in the U.S. Senate. But I have an idea. What if the Vice President always had a vote in the Senate? So there would be 101 members of the Senate. 2 from each state, and the Vice President.

Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2011, 09:28:39 PM »

I've always thought it odd that the position of the Vice President exists. It's not a well defined position other than "back-up President." Probably the most important power they have to break a tie in the U.S. Senate. But I have an idea. What if the Vice President always had a vote in the Senate? So there would be 101 members of the Senate. 2 from each state, and the Vice President.

The only real difference is that the Vice-President would get to participate in the election of his successor when the election of the Vice-President goes to the House.

Personally, I think we should have at the moment 104 Senators, with the 101st to 104th Senators being Senators Carter, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. by virtue of being ex-Presidents. (Presidents who resign or are impeached would not get that privilege.)
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,042
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2011, 10:04:48 PM »

Personally, I think we should have at the moment 104 Senators, with the 101st to 104th Senators being Senators Carter, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. by virtue of being ex-Presidents. (Presidents who resign or are impeached would not get that privilege.)

Assuming they would be granted that position for the rest of their lives, I'm not comfortable with the idea of legislative officeholders not having to face the electorate on a regular basis.  The idea of GWB being rewarded for his piss-poor presidency with a lifetime role in a different branch of government is not a savory one.  Senator Carter would have been a member of the Senate for the past thirty years, and not had to face an election once.
Logged
Teddy (IDS Legislator)
nickjbor
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -1.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2011, 11:40:04 PM »

I've always thought the idea of the losing candidate in presidential (and vice) elections should become Senator; opposition leader of a sort, while the VP would get a regular seat to balance things.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2011, 01:55:05 AM »

Personally, I think we should have at the moment 104 Senators, with the 101st to 104th Senators being Senators Carter, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. by virtue of being ex-Presidents. (Presidents who resign or are impeached would not get that privilege.)

Assuming they would be granted that position for the rest of their lives, I'm not comfortable with the idea of legislative officeholders not having to face the electorate on a regular basis.  The idea of GWB being rewarded for his piss-poor presidency with a lifetime role in a different branch of government is not a savory one.  Senator Carter would have been a member of the Senate for the past thirty years, and not had to face an election once.

Considering that they would be but a few out of many, it doesn't really bother me that this would be a lifetime office.  It does provide one answer to the question of what do you do with an ex-President.

I've always thought the idea of the losing candidate in presidential (and vice) elections should become Senator; opposition leader of a sort, while the VP would get a regular seat to balance things.

Nah.  If you don't win, you don't win.  The Constitution is silent on the issue of political parties, and what do you do when there are multiple losing opponents?  Would you really have wanted Governor Thurmond to go into the Senate after losing in 1948?
Logged
Pingvin
Pingvin99
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,761
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 05, 2011, 04:40:40 AM »

Actually I like idea of giving position of "All-American Senator" to former presidents and vice-presidents!
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2011, 12:12:43 AM »

Personally, I think we should have at the moment 104 Senators, with the 101st to 104th Senators being Senators Carter, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. by virtue of being ex-Presidents. (Presidents who resign or are impeached would not get that privilege.)

I can't think of anything good coming from this idea; it's at best undemocratic. Italy's had problems with it.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2011, 07:36:44 AM »

No thanks. I'm not a fan of offices-for-life.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2011, 07:48:24 PM »

Nah.  If you don't win, you don't win.  The Constitution is silent on the issue of political parties, and what do you do when there are multiple losing opponents?  Would you really have wanted Governor Thurmond to go into the Senate after losing in 1948?

And what about those who didn't quite run but received electoral votes from faithless elector (so, technically, were "candidates")? A freaking Senator-for-life Walter B. Jones in 1956?
Logged
Jerseyrules
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,544
United States


Political Matrix
E: 10.00, S: -4.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 02, 2012, 01:23:33 AM »

IMP the VP should be the head of the legislative branch, elected by the people staggered from the POTUS, I.e. in off-year elections.  They should also have equal if not more power than POTUS
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2012, 11:57:42 PM »

Nah.  If you don't win, you don't win.  The Constitution is silent on the issue of political parties, and what do you do when there are multiple losing opponents?  Would you really have wanted Governor Thurmond to go into the Senate after losing in 1948?

And what about those who didn't quite run but received electoral votes from faithless elector (so, technically, were "candidates")? A freaking Senator-for-life Walter B. Jones in 1956?

In theory, it could be the candidate with the second highest number of electoral votes.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 16, 2012, 08:33:12 AM »

Nah.  If you don't win, you don't win.  The Constitution is silent on the issue of political parties, and what do you do when there are multiple losing opponents?  Would you really have wanted Governor Thurmond to go into the Senate after losing in 1948?

And what about those who didn't quite run but received electoral votes from faithless elector (so, technically, were "candidates")? A freaking Senator-for-life Walter B. Jones in 1956?

In theory, it could be the candidate with the second highest number of electoral votes.

In such case, is a runner-up is an incumbent Senator, I assume he'd simply move from an elected to a lifetime seat.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 16, 2012, 03:44:52 PM »

Nah.  If you don't win, you don't win.  The Constitution is silent on the issue of political parties, and what do you do when there are multiple losing opponents?  Would you really have wanted Governor Thurmond to go into the Senate after losing in 1948?

And what about those who didn't quite run but received electoral votes from faithless elector (so, technically, were "candidates")? A freaking Senator-for-life Walter B. Jones in 1956?
Clearly everybody who ran for President, even by paying a 30 dollar filing fee in the New Hampshire primary, should be made a Senator for life. That goes without saying. Grin
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 16, 2012, 03:47:36 PM »

Nah.  If you don't win, you don't win.  The Constitution is silent on the issue of political parties, and what do you do when there are multiple losing opponents?  Would you really have wanted Governor Thurmond to go into the Senate after losing in 1948?

And what about those who didn't quite run but received electoral votes from faithless elector (so, technically, were "candidates")? A freaking Senator-for-life Walter B. Jones in 1956?

In theory, it could be the candidate with the second highest number of electoral votes.
The Vice Presidency was of course invented for exactly that purpose originally, as part of a compromise package between those who wanted the electoral college to choose the President and those who basically wanted it to draw up a shortlist for Congress to choose from.

REPEAL THE XIIth AMENDMENT! Cheesy
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 17, 2012, 08:41:15 AM »

Nah.  If you don't win, you don't win.  The Constitution is silent on the issue of political parties, and what do you do when there are multiple losing opponents?  Would you really have wanted Governor Thurmond to go into the Senate after losing in 1948?

And what about those who didn't quite run but received electoral votes from faithless elector (so, technically, were "candidates")? A freaking Senator-for-life Walter B. Jones in 1956?
Clearly everybody who ran for President, even by paying a 30 dollar filing fee in the New Hampshire primary, should be made a Senator for life. That goes without saying. Grin

Well, in such case elected members would make up like 1% of the Senate Grin
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2012, 10:01:07 AM »

Nah.  If you don't win, you don't win.  The Constitution is silent on the issue of political parties, and what do you do when there are multiple losing opponents?  Would you really have wanted Governor Thurmond to go into the Senate after losing in 1948?

And what about those who didn't quite run but received electoral votes from faithless elector (so, technically, were "candidates")? A freaking Senator-for-life Walter B. Jones in 1956?

In theory, it could be the candidate with the second highest number of electoral votes.

In such case, is a runner-up is an incumbent Senator, I assume he'd simply move from an elected to a lifetime seat.

There would be a vacancy in the senate seat, in that instance (as there were in 2009).

I really think that people come in second for a reason, and don't like the idea too much.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2012, 10:56:24 AM »

Nah.  If you don't win, you don't win.  The Constitution is silent on the issue of political parties, and what do you do when there are multiple losing opponents?  Would you really have wanted Governor Thurmond to go into the Senate after losing in 1948?

And what about those who didn't quite run but received electoral votes from faithless elector (so, technically, were "candidates")? A freaking Senator-for-life Walter B. Jones in 1956?

In theory, it could be the candidate with the second highest number of electoral votes.

In such case, is a runner-up is an incumbent Senator, I assume he'd simply move from an elected to a lifetime seat.

There would be a vacancy in the senate seat, in that instance (as there were in 2009).

I really think that people come in second for a reason, and don't like the idea too much.

So, why not to create a third, upper-upper House to stuff all these people? American House of Lords, preferably with marginal powers.

John McCain, Baron McCain of Hanoi.
Richard B. Cheney, Baron Cheney of Haliburton.
J. Danforth Quayle, Baron Quayle of Phoenix.
Albert A. Gore, Baron Gore of Internets.
J. Richard Perry, Baron Perry of nhead.
George H. W. Bush, Baron Bush of Kennebunkport.
Richard J. Santorum, Baron Santorum of Great Falls.
James E. Carter, Baron Carter of Malaise.
Newton L. Gingrich, Baron Gingrich of Luna.

Of course, there would be multiple Barons Romney to sit in the Lords. Baron Romney of Detroit, Baron Romney of Boston, Baron Romney of Nashua, BARONBOT-ROMNEY, etc.
Logged
I'm JewCon in name only.
Klecly
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 917
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.61, S: 6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2012, 08:17:12 PM »

No thanks. I'm not a fan of offices-for-life.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,709
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 29, 2012, 04:15:31 PM »

The Senate is the most important check that State governments retain on the federal government.  Thus, I do not like the idea of "stateless" Senators. 
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 29, 2012, 05:51:19 PM »

The Senate is the most important check that State governments retain on the federal government.  Thus, I do not like the idea of "stateless" Senators. 

Senators are not dependent on their home state governments.

Ever heard about a little thing called Seventeenth Amendment?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 29, 2012, 07:19:38 PM »

The Senate is the most important check that State governments retain on the federal government.  Thus, I do not like the idea of "stateless" Senators. 

Senators are not dependent on their home state governments.

Ever heard about a little thing called Seventeenth Amendment?

Some of us still hope for its repeal.  Rather than popular election, I'd have much rather seen the powers of the Senate limited.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 13 queries.