The Coli: Higher Learning Podcast 10DEC2020

OfTheCross

Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
43,499
Reputation
4,974
Daps
98,928
Reppin
Keeping my overhead low, and my understand high
It was a compromise stuck by the Continental Congress in order to get the smaller States to buy into the idea of The Constitution. The US wouldn't be a thing without it. It'd just be a bunch of States that work together sometimes. No real National government.

And if we tried to get rid of it now it wouldn't work either cause those States aren't giving up their power. :yeshrug:
 

dora_da_destroyer

Master Baker
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
65,774
Reputation
16,417
Daps
270,604
Reppin
Oakland
It was a compromise stuck by the Continental Congress in order to get the smaller States to buy into the idea of The Constitution. The US wouldn't be a thing without it. It'd just be a bunch of States that work together sometimes. No real National government.

And if we tried to get rid of it now it wouldn't work either cause those States aren't giving up their power. :yeshrug:
I’ll have to re-read into it as I remember reading why they were avoiding a PM system, but that doesn’t sound 100


As for now, everyone would be giving up their “power” to better realign representation around key concerns, not monolithic party lines that don’t mean jack. A ID, MS and NH republican ain’t one in the same, they’d benefit from a parliamentary system where they come together around lower taxes and smaller govt. and I’m pretty sure republicans in CA and Dems in NC would love a system where their voice matters. We’re not changing simply because country’s don’t change systems without war/revolt, but losing power isn’t the issue here.
 

OfTheCross

Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
43,499
Reputation
4,974
Daps
98,928
Reppin
Keeping my overhead low, and my understand high
I’ll have to re-read into it as I remember reading why they were avoiding a PM system, but that doesn’t sound 100


As for now, everyone would be giving up their “power” to better realign representation around key concerns, not monolithic party lines that don’t mean jack. A ID, MS and NH republican ain’t one in the same, they’d benefit from a parliamentary system where they come together around lower taxes and smaller govt. and I’m pretty sure republicans in CA and Dems in NC would love a system where their voice matters. We’re not changing simply because country’s don’t change systems without war/revolt, but losing power isn’t the issue here.
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 62

"The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a PROPORTIONAL share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an EQUAL share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation."

Point #3 in Federalist 62 covers it...

Even the counter-argument in Brutus 16 likes it: "It is indeed the only feature of any importance in the constitution"


There are many things that can be fixed about the Senate, though. We definitely need to consider some reforms
 

2Quik4UHoes

Why you had to go?
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
63,801
Reputation
18,733
Daps
238,022
Reppin
Norfeast groovin…
I’ve sometimes wondered what it would be like to mix the different systems. Like a three tiered Legislative with a Parliament in the middle, Congress below, and Senate at the top and parties broken into fourths along the political ideology spectrum....:jbhmm:
 
  • Dap
Reactions: OsO
Top