It’s actually a 6 year reckoning, and since few people show up to midterm elections, it usually works out to 12 years.
No doubt acerbated by the fact some of these Senators have been around for decades. What’s the point of knowing how long the term is if it never seems to end, and there are no limits?
From my flawed, politician hating perspective, the term effectively is, “how ever long these assholes can get enough people to vote for them.”
4 Likes
Well, I can see how “has served his constituents well for decades” might give someone an advantage over “no track record but lots of campaign promises.”
I’m not really sure that’s an unfair advantage, though.
And I’m pretty sure that making a law that says that the ONLY person who CAN’T run to be my representative is the one guy I’ve voted for multiple times (and, after the first time, based on performance, not on campaign promises) is the right way to go about ‘fixing’ whatever problem there is.
So , the only disqualifier would be previously demonstrated satisfactory performance?
Well, gosh, let’s pass that law right away. We can’t just be letting people vote for whoever they want, if they end up wanting the wrong people, now can we?
You just can’t trust voters with an unrestricted vote.
1 Like
Yeah, I very seriously doubt most voters know their senior senator’s voting record, and I doubt many people care about their senator’s performance more than pure name recognition.
1 Like
if we’re listing problems with the Senate, there’s also the way it gives each voter in Wyoming more than fifty times as much influence as a voter in California
4 Likes
Well then, I suppose they can’t be trusted with democracy, can they?
1 Like
That’s a feature, not a bug.
The Senate is intended to represent the interests of states, not individual voters. The equal-representation-per-state is intended to keep populous urbanized states from running roughshod over thinly populated rural states.
And it does. Much to the frustration of urban-state voters, of course. But Senators aren’t representing voters - that’s the job of the House of Representatives.
Indeed, If you read the fine print, the voters aren’t even entitled to vote for Senators, by right. Selection of Senators is left to the discretion of the state legislatures.
In the early years of the republic, most states let their legislature select Senators. Only later did popular vote become prevalent.
You may not like the effects that the feature produces, and you could very well advocate for changing to something else, as many do (likely more advantageous to yourself, yes?), but it’s not a defect - it’s working exactly as designed.
1 Like
If you don’t agree that inequality is a problem, then
-
I can’t help you
-
I’m not at all interested in your opinions or your patronizing history lesson
8 Likes
The best solution I’ve seen to the many problems of the Senate in the modern context while preserving the original intent and function is to require the Senate to vote with the House on legislation instead of separately. There’s nothing really preventing this except the GOP’s dependence on low-population rural states to make its margins or block progressive laws most Americans want, and also both parties’ inertia.
If by “yourself” you mean someone more interested in a republic that more accurately reflects the popular will of all the nation’s citizens (as has been the historic trend for liberal democracy in America) while reducing opportunities for obstructionism like The Turtle’s, put me down for a “yes”.
8 Likes
Isn’t that my job? 
8 Likes
originally the equal representation for states bit was to protect the interests of the states where human beings were owned as property and could be used and abused at the discretion of their owners until the death of the owned human beings or the escape of the owned human beings. this was in addition to the three-fifths clause which boosted the representation of the states where owning human beings was legal in the so-called people’s chamber, the house of representatives. the whole concept of the senate representing rural over urban excuse really didn’t come up much until the republican party decided it needed protection for its massive failure to appeal to anyone much beyond a base of angry or frightened white people.
this hasn’t been true for over 100 years. the 17th amendment to the constitution guaranteeing the right to popular election of senators was ratified in may of 1913.
if by that you mean it is still working to unfairly boost the power of racists to control one of the legislative branches then yes, yes it is.
10 Likes
Ah, right you are! My bad.
"Originally weren’t entitled […] " is what I meant.
Sheesh. Getting so old, I’m misremembering political trivia. 
Sorry 'bout that.
1 Like
Yes, that was a factor, but there was also considerable concern that with all-proportional representation, larger states could use tricks like financing the government by a per-acre property tax (rather than by-value), so that the rural states would end up paying for the whims of the urban elites.
This was much discussed during the Constitutional Convention.
But yes, just as I said, it’s about the small (rural, agricultural slave-holding) states not being dominated by the large (urbanized, commercial, free) states. That included the issue of slavery.
Also, I’d very much like to note to everyone here that I’ve expressed NO opinion at all on the desirability of non-proportional representation in the Senate. None.
It’s a feature, not a bug - but that doesn’t mean I approve of it, or that I support it, or that I think it’s Holy Writ that Mustn’t Be Changed.
I am, in fact, fairly dubious about it (but then I’m fairly dubious about many features of US governance, so there’s that…)
I’m just pointing out that, if you want to change it, acting like it’s obviously a defect that needs correcting won’t get you far with those who oppose such changes.
I’m trying to be realistic about why it’s there in the first place, and why its supporters won’t be moved by “It’s unfair because it’s not proportional!”
It’s not meant to be.
(But around here, any attempt to actually understand the opposition rather than just mock and abuse them seems to be treated as actually being the opposition. <sigh>
So I suppose I should just let it go and chalk this up to experience.)
1 Like
“Around here”, it’s well understood by observation of the evidence that the opposition has demonstrated itself very willing to pander to white supremacists since 1968 and to religious fundies who want to mix church and state as well as delusional greedheads since 1980, all in the name of serving large incumbent corporations and the ultra-wealthy. It’s also understood that the opposition is willing to lie, cheat, disenfranchise, and exploit broken systems like the Senate and Electoral College to get their way. Why are mockery and abuse inappropriate reactions to that?
“Around here” we know full well that neoliberalism has left a lot of Americans behind and increased economic inequality. We also know that the opposition is the main promoter of “free” market fundamentalist dogma.
“Around here” most of us are done making excuses for an opposition dedicated to undermining American liberal-democratic institutions and ideals; all that excuse-making has done is bring the country to our current, sorry state. [sigh]
5 Likes
I didn’t say mockery and abuse aren’t appropriate reactions.
But those aren’t the only valid reactions, and I’m getting tired of being regarded as Team Oppo (and therefore subject to the same mockery and abuse) just because it’s not my style.
But I’ll learn. When primates start screaming and flinging shit, it’s best to stay out of the way and keep quiet. (Unless you want to join in, which I don’t, especially.)
I don’t think anyone regards you as Team Oppo. But after reading your comments here I’m beginning to think that you’re happy to be a member of Team “Moderate Centrist” alongside a number of Senators and Reps. (to be clear, “around here” that’s not regarded as a helpful team to be on when no-kidding fascists are marching in the streets and right-wing populists are in the White House).
Famous last words from the zentrum.
1 Like
Oh, and just FTR, I agree with John Oliver: Filibusters Bad!
They’re a perfect example of a well-intentioned procedural rule being abused and misused to end-run the rules and block the will of the majority.
In fact, I think most Senatorial/Congressional dysfunction is the result of procedural rules (filibusetr, seniority, committee assignments, the budgeting and markup process, and on and on) that could be changed by a veto- and filibuster-proof simple majority at the beginning of any new Congressional session.
All it needs are congressmen with the courage to give up the “unfair advantages for minorities”, even if that means losing those same advantages when you become a minority.
So far, I see no evidence of such. And as long as those dysfunctions persist, non-proportional election of Senators is the least of my worries.
Nope. Nothing moderate or centrist in my positions. Just trying to understand the opposition so as to effectively oppose them.
But, yeah, that apparently means I’m “Team Useless Moderate”, (also eligible for mockery and
dismissive snark, oh yay!).
If you don’t participate enthusiastically enough in the Two Minute Daily Hate, then you’re clearly suspect, and probably one of those detestable “centrists” who can’t properly decide who to hate.
As noted above, there’s not much mystery left to be uncovered about the opposition at this point. The way to fight them is clear: write off the Know-Nothing 27% and the billionaires, focus on the remaining portion of Republican voters (enough of whom can be swayed for the Dems to make their margin, support Dem candidates who don’t think it’s still 1993, and give the GOP the same quarter they’ve given us for 40 years (none).
2 Likes
In your opinion.
Is it?
And in your opinion, the way to do that is:
Noted without comment.
Noted, but with reservations.
I’m really dubious about the value of this tactic, but YMMV. There are lots of other places to find more votes.
Too vague. I mean, I’m sure you know what that means (to you) but I’m a bit unclear on what you mean by it, so I’ll reserve judgement pending more specifics. (But probably, yeah.)
Two big thumbs up there. Gloves off, nuclear options enabled, and ignore all their sad-snowflake fake tears. Play to win. Go big or go home. As you say, no quarter.
Once in office, we can stand on our lofty principles and occupy the moral high ground.
But until then, it’s time to start slitting throats. (Metaphorically speaking! This is not the Punjab!)
(All IMHO, of course.)
–
So, is that enough agreement, or am I still on Team Evil-Enabler unless I agree with all your opinions?
