US Politics: “How did we come to this...”

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

I suspect it would be very difficult to get Manchin to support the bill, yes.

Hence why 50-50, in the sense I meant, won't work. And you're better at this than me, I'm sure there's a few other votes you'd lose. So you would need a margin, at minimum +5 from where things stand. 

Hard to game that out my friend, assuming everything was even above board.

And it won't be. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

If they do get Washington D.C. done in the next couple years, I wonder if Puerto Rico wouldn’t be too far behind?

If DC is made a State shouldn’t NYC (plus Long Island) be a State?  Seriously, what other city in the US has its own “counties”?

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Hence why 50-50, in the sense I meant, won't work.

I said difficult, not impossible:

I don't think they'd lose anybody else.  Some of the newly elected Senators - namely Bullock - might raise a fuss, but he's not gonna tank his party on one of his first major votes.  Bullock has more balls than Manchin anyway.

What the hell do you mean "above board?"  We're talking about whipping votes.  That's the definition of not being above board.

[A True Kaniggit]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If DC is made a State shouldn’t NYC (plus Long Island) be a State?  Seriously, what other city in the US has its own “counties”?

Who knows? I was talking about citizens who aren't represented in the Senate gaining representation. Not dividing up existing states.

Personally, I think the Senate is outdated anyways. We're supposed to be one country. It's silly we still use a system made by people over 200 years ago when people would put state before country.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Who knows? I was talking about citizens who aren't represented in the Senate gaining representation. Not dividing up existing states.

Personally, I think the Senate is outdated anyways. We're supposed to be one country. It's silly we still use a system made by people over 200 years ago when people would put state before country.

Removing the Senate requires unanimous consent of all States.  It’s existence and equal representation for all States is rhe only provision of the US Constitution that requires unanimous consent to change.  

If you eliminate the Senate you might as well start from scratch.

[A True Kaniggit]

16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Removing the Senate requires unanimous consent of all States.  It’s existence and equal representation for all States is rhe only provision of the US Constitution that requires unanimous consent to change.  

If you eliminate the Senate you might as well start from scratch.

But what do you think of the Senate itself?

Do you think it still provides a useful function?

 

As I said, I think giving disproportionate representation to certain citizens because of state lines is silly when we're supposed to be one nation.

[Zorral]

35 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If DC is made a State shouldn’t NYC (plus Long Island) be a State?  Seriously, what other city in the US has its own “counties”?

Long Island and NYC are very different entities politically.

 

 

[Freshwater Spartan]

Why stop at 1 state for D.C. Make each neighborhood a state for 127 new states all likely Democratic. 

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21063591/modest-proposal-to-save-american-democracy-pack-the-union-harvard-law-review

Kick in Puerto Rico in As well and you won't have to worry about a new constitutional convention to abolish the Senate

[DMC]

19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Removing the Senate requires unanimous consent of all States.

Well, you don't need unanimous consent to ratify an amendment that "removes" the Senate, you just need to ratify an amendment that overrides Article 1 Section 3 Clause 1 to alter the apportionment of the chamber.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, A True Kaniggit said:

But what do you think of the Senate itself?

Do you think it still provides a useful function?

 

As I said, I think giving disproportionate representation to certain citizens because of state lines is silly when we're supposed to be one nation.

It’s a feature not a bug.  It was designed to do that.  It is deliberately undemocratic.  

What I think of the Senate is irrelevant.  It requires unanimous consent to change, but, for the record, if I had my druthers we’d convert to a European style parliament with a proportional representation system of election that elects a Prime Minister (or a chancellor) who can be removed from power by a vote of “No Confidence”.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Long Island and NYC are very different entities politically.

 

 

I know.  It simply makes sense geographically to keep Long Island with NYC if it were made into a State.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Well, you don't need unanimous consent to ratify an amendment that "removes" the Senate, you just need to ratify an amendment that overrides Article 1 Section 3 Clause 1 to alter the apportionment of the chamber.

DMC,

It would be a fight.  Art. V clearly and unequivocally states:

 

 and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

No State can have equal sufferage in the Senate if the Senate doesn’t exist.  I suspect the SCOTUS would an attempt to end run Art. V the same way.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

Kick in Puerto Rico in As well and you won't have to worry about a new constitutional convention to abolish the Senate

Huh, it doesn’t matter how many States exist in the Union if unanimous consent is required to eliminate the Senate.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

DMC,

It would be a fight.  Art. V clearly and unequivocally states:

I'm saying if this would ever be able to happen - and it won't in our lifetimes - you could ratify an amendment that alters both Article 1, which would fundamentally shift the definition of "equal suffrage in the Senate" - and, hell, could add a second section to the amendment clarifying Article 5 means "equal suffrage" now means apportionment by population.  If you're gonna override one clause in the amendment, might as well override the second one that may challenge the first new one.  The point is, it would not require "unanimous consent" of each state.  That's a misnomer.  It'd "only" require an amendment.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

47 minutes ago, DMC said:

I said difficult, not impossible:

I don't think they'd lose anybody else.  Some of the newly elected Senators - namely Bullock - might raise a fuss, but he's not gonna tank his party on one of his first major votes.  Bullock has more balls than Manchin anyway.

What the hell do you mean "above board?"  We're talking about whipping votes.  That's the definition of not being above board.

You've left me at an odd space my friend. 

I really don't know if I should be mad at you, albeit just a bit mad, like you know maybe just give you like a really dirty look or something, But how dare you! 

[Freshwater Spartan]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Huh, it doesn’t matter how many States exist in the Union if unanimous consent is required to eliminate the Senate.

Sorry perhaps I am being more political. If you get 254 new Democratic senators who need to abolish the senate? 

under this new plan you can get your wish too. If you read the article it goes on how these new states would provide strength theoretically pass all kinds of new amendments.

The whole idea is bananas really. I was just reading your guy's discussion and remembered the article.

[Jaxom 1974]

Not sure where to posit this question: is there a syndrome, or something similar, that describes not being able to cut oneself free from toxic, tinfoil hat wearing friends and family on social media because your afraid of what other insane bullshit they'll say or do to other friends and family...?  Seems that it's particularly relevant towards political discourse, though it applies to Covid these days too...

 

[ThinkerX]

I can say my Facebook as of the past couple of weeks has been inundated with pleas from various 'R' senators complaining that they are in dire jeopardy of loosing their seats to 'D' challengers.  Most prominent of these was the 'Montana Guy,' but even Mitch seemed a little jumpy for a while.  As usual, I read through the comments on these adds, and while there were plenty of 'we need to defeat the libtard menace!' type posts, the 'R' characters in question came under severe criticism - Mitch in particular.

 

From this, I figure it's likely the 'R' 'Montana Guy' will lose his seat by something on the order of a couple thousand votes.  But that's just me.

 

Currently, in my state the democratic candidate for the house is boasting about having a 1 point lead over Don Young.  He, too, is getting criticism, mostly of the 'it's time to retire' variety.  

[Larry of the Lawn]

8 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

DMC,

It would be a fight.  Art. V clearly and unequivocally states:

 

 

No State can have equal sufferage in the Senate if the Senate doesn’t exist.  I suspect the SCOTUS would an attempt to end run Art. V the same way.

Yes they can.  If it doesn't exist they still have equal sufferage in it.  That amount happens to be nothing, but it's equal to all the other states'.  It's not like some states would have Senate votes and others wouldn't.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Yes they can.  If it doesn't exist they still have equal sufferage in it.  That amount happens to be nothing, but it's equal to all the other states'.  It's not like some states would have Senate votes and others wouldn't.

No.  If it doesn’t exist they have no vote in the Senate at all.  This would be a SCOTUS fight.