New Cause: Abolish the Damn House of Lords

because that's what our damn Senate is.

I've started another thread on here complaining that O didn't mention anything about carbon caps in his speech. I was told, by several very smart posters, that it's because he knows they'll die in the fucking Senate.

I know that. I know the goddamn whore Senate is the problem. They are our House of Lords and they have far too much power. They need to be neutered.

Since, clearly, the cause of my life, fighting climate change, will go nowhere with the bastard Senate as it is currently instantiated, maybe it's time to focus my energies on gelding that body and it's piece of shit filibuster.

What do you think: can we ever get anything passed the evil fuck senate again?

Any minute now, this thread is gonna be overrun by the "the filibuster saved Social Security in 2005" crazies. They're wrong, but they never let up.

And what happens if the House flips to the GOP? Bicameralism's purpose is to restrain the the wild sewings the House is prone to because as we all know the nation's pendulum can swing very quickly.

Senate gives to the upper class is the reason that half the voters stay home these days. Were you paying attention when the Health Care reform Bill was being twisted and gutted from the House version to get it past the Senate?

Becauise then the countries politics as a whole would be governed largely by the middle of th electorate and the middle class rather then placating smaller factions who tend to push hightly partisan positions because they vote in mushc higher numbers. .

South Dakota,Alaska,and North Dakota, all 3.3 million of them, at the tender mercies of California with its 37 million people?

Funny how states rights is tilted to the small states!


Edited to correct a little oopsie - California has 37 million people, not 3.7 million!

Umm you might want to edit you California population

the founders wanted the Senate so leaders would have to appeal to a diverse population.

of the South wouldn't be subject to the will of those low class upstarts in the North! Imagine, allowing people to vote when they didn't own large tracts of land!

So you can't use that attempt at a regional divide as an excuse. The Federalist Papers (which were written to appeal to voters in New York) outlined the reasons the founders had for the Senate. They didn't want politicians to just appeal to large populations centers.

Sounds very Man of Lamanchaesque...

demand steak.

Cleaning and gutting it...
Have it quartered and cut into steaks...
Choose a steak...
Have it ground...

I know your angry, but your soultion to solving that problem seems short on details.

for nuking the filibuster.

Which is all I really want.

However, making people, regular everyday voters, hate the Senate, and I mean hate with a revolutionary intensity, hate with a Che Fucking Guevara kind of intensity, is what it's going to take to get the Senate to accept that admittedly mild crimp on its power.

And do I have a plan for helping this along. Yeah, I have for a while. Just have to work out some issues of money and time and luck.

Two houses are redundant. Abolish the Senate, add 100 seats to the House (just so no states actually lose representation), which would bring district sizes down some. One house is enough and the House of Representatives is more democratic by concept. It would also bring gridlock down by eliminating the need for both house to agree on a bill.

I don't want Lieberman until 2012! They need to answer to the people more.
Of course, changing that would be near impossible.

is actually ( the little ) states ( have more ) rights ( per capita )