If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be

[Del Tachi]

Pass an amendment requiring a 3/5 (or possibly even 2/3) vote in the U.S. Senate to invoke cloture on a motion.  Nix the "nuclear option" once and for all, and protect the Senate's status as  the world's greatest deliberative body.

[Del Tachi]

-change senate terms to four years instead of six, giving each state the ability to vote in the senate every election (Class I in presidential years in all states, Class II in off years for all states--its always bugged me that in any given year 17 states have no say)

Wut?  With that kind of reasoning, I guess you're similarly upset the 38 states that aren't getting to elect a governor this year "have no say"?  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Eh, single-member districts preserve a sort of inherent geographic equality in legislative bodies.  It would be terrible if all 14 Congressmen from Georgia were from Metro Atlanta (or any other part of the state), single-member districts prevent this kind of issue from arising.    

[Del Tachi]

I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment to require 60 or even 66 votes to evoke cloture in the U.S. Senate.  Nix the nuclear option. 

[Del Tachi]

-change senate terms to four years instead of six, giving each state the ability to vote in the senate every election (Class I in presidential years in all states, Class II in off years for all states--its always bugged me that in any given year 17 states have no say)

Wut?  With that kind of reasoning, I guess you're similarly upset the 38 states that aren't getting to elect a governor this year "have no say"? 

This argument doesn't really make any sense. States operate on their own timetable. If there's a swing in public opinion in a specific state, if it happens during the year they don't have a Senate election, then that swing in opinion doesn't get registered in the Senate, or at least not until another two years have passed.

My personal preference would be to just give each state one more senator so that each state has one senator up for re-election every 6 years.

No that doesn't make any sense.  Swings in public opinion are not confined to only occurring immediately before election dates; even with elections to the House of Representatives, there are certain changes in public opinion that are not recorded through electoral outcomes.  Take for example the Sandy Hook shooting and the large swell of public support for new gun control measures that came as a result of it.  The shootings occurred right after a general election, so the change in public opinion was not reflected in the 2012 election results.  With events like Sandy Hook occurring frequently but irregularly, what's the argument for not having elections every year, month, or week?     

[Del Tachi]

-change senate terms to four years instead of six, giving each state the ability to vote in the senate every election (Class I in presidential years in all states, Class II in off years for all states--its always bugged me that in any given year 17 states have no say)

Wut?  With that kind of reasoning, I guess you're similarly upset the 38 states that aren't getting to elect a governor this year "have no say"? 

This argument doesn't really make any sense. States operate on their own timetable. If there's a swing in public opinion in a specific state, if it happens during the year they don't have a Senate election, then that swing in opinion doesn't get registered in the Senate, or at least not until another two years have passed.

My personal preference would be to just give each state one more senator so that each state has one senator up for re-election every 6 years.

No that doesn't make any sense.  Swings in public opinion are not confined to only occurring immediately before election dates; even with elections to the House of Representatives, there are certain changes in public opinion that are not recorded through electoral outcomes.  Take for example the Sandy Hook shooting and the large swell of public support for new gun control measures that came as a result of it.  The shootings occurred right after a general election, so the change in public opinion was not reflected in the 2012 election results.  With events like Sandy Hook occurring frequently but irregularly, what's the argument for not having elections every year, month, or week?     

You don't really seem to be engaging with this argument in good faith, so I'm going to check out.

No, its a very fundamental question regarding the purpose of elections and the nature of representative democracy.  If the purpose of elections is to produce representation that is acutely aware of every minute change in the body politic (like Hammy seems to imply in his arguments), then a necessary question becomes why aren't we holding elections at laughably short intervals

[Del Tachi]

No, its a very fundamental question regarding the purpose of elections and the nature of representative democracy.  If the purpose of elections is to produce representation that is acutely aware of every minute change in the body politic (like Hammy seems to imply in his arguments), then a necessary question becomes why aren't we holding elections at laughably short intervals

House elections are every two years--and everybody is up for reelection. Should we then start staggering the house seats to where 1/3 of voters have no say in any given election? The idea is to simply regulate the Senate in a similar manner as the House, giving each state a say in each elections. Simply reduce the terms by two years and hold all 50 states at intervals. I don't quite see how this is "laughably short"--simply giving each voter a say in the legislative process each election.

It produces the unfavorable outcome that half of the Senate will always be elected in a Presidential year while the other half will always be elected in a midterm year.  Ideally, Senators should have to run under both conditions.