Summations Only

If you asked the electorate if they would prefer better schools or better bombers what do you think they would say?

All of the votes have never been counted. (...hic)Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

And that means?I don't get what you are trying to say here.

Because the states are sovereign governing bodies that share the responsibility for governing with the federal government. And in fact the states have the bulk of the 'police' powers, with the federal government having only the enumerated powers in the constitution. The states have their own set of law, their own interests, and it is the heart of federalism that the states be separate democracy laboratories not subject to the will of the other states, at least to the extent that being left alone does not contravene the federal constitution.Rhode Island has no lesser interest then California and Florida in protect its own state interests. It makes sense that there is at least some provision in government that reflects that. Of course, one might well argue that dedicating an entire legislative body for that purpose introduces more negative than positive.

And despite their concerns, they decided to do include the Senate with equal state representation anyway for perfectly understandable reasons. I sincerely doubt that 3/4 of the states would agree to undo it now. Perhaps Jar isn't an idiot.

No, they're not. We had a war about that, and the "sovereign states in a voluntary union" lost and lost hard. (I know you southern folks act like that never happened - "war of Northern aggression", lol! - but get the memo, it was 150 years ago.)Now we're a strong central government with almost all "sovereign powers" delegated to the Federal government. Like I said, what carried a slight majority 220 years ago might not be a good idea any more. Well, but that's exactly it - they don't have their own interests. The issues that face somebody are much more a function of the kind of municipality they live in - rural, suburban, urban - than they are of what state they live in. The notion that there's some natural shared interest that unites the concerns of a Colorado rancher and a schoolteacher in Denver, but isn't also shared by a schoolteacher in Minneapolis, is nonsensical. States in the US are just an arbitrary geographical demarcation that unites a bunch of people who, really, aren't terribly alike.Neighbors should share representation. But nobody over in Kearney is my neighbor. There's no issue that affects us that doesn't also affect people who live in Minnesota and Texas. Any geographical area larger than a municipality should be administered by the Federal government, so that poor schoolchildren in Louisiana can enjoy some portion of the enormous revenue of Texas. They shouldn't be impoverished just because there's an arbitrary boundary between them. Jesus Christ! I don't want to live in a "democracy laboratory." I want to live in a goddamn country that is adequately governed. "Laboratories of democracy", what a fucking idiotic idea. Our public infrastructure is falling down around our ears. It's not time for fucking Mr. Wizard up in here, it's time for the government to do the hard work of governing.

Well, I'm glad the Senate can bestir itself to declare November 23rd National Fish Tacos Day, or what the fuck ever, but in the meantime nobody has a job, corporate fatcats are stealing everything in the country that isn't nailed down, people who own their homes outright are being forclosed on by banks they've never done business with, and the polar ice caps are melting all around our assholes.So pardon me for not thinking that the Senate is working, since by "working" you appear to mean "less useful than tits on a steer."

You are free of course to post all the nonsense that you want and to continue to misrepresent what I say. However, that does not change the fact that bills do get passed and even get signed into law.It really is that simple.

That question has been asked and they said better school stadiums first, then better bombers.The US decided over a quarter century ago that schools are not meant to educate an electorate but rather to train a workforce.

But are they the right bills? Do they address the issues that face us? Are they the best solutions that the government can bring to bear on the problem, or are they the "solutions" that will appease special interests and mollify the people?There's no "misrepresentation", Jar. It's time for you to retire that played-out line of attack. "It really is that simple."

All issues are "special" to those who support that position.It really is that simple.Note that you mention "mollify the people".That is exactly the problem and it is not limited to the Senate, or the House, or the Executive branches, it even effects the Supreme Court.The problem is not that Senatorial representation is based on equal votes for each state, in fact one great function it provides is that it is not driven solely by "mollifying the people".You seem to keep changing the subject and by doing so, misrepresent what others have said.Remember the process. For a bill to get passed into law it must pass BOTH houses of Congress and then get signed by the President (or vetoed and then passed by an overwhelming majority in Congress).The issue of which bills get passed is in the end determined by whether or not the public accepts what their Congressional Representatives do. In the end, the people can vote those representatives out of office.The solution is not to change the system but to educate the electorate and that cannot happen in less than a couple generations I fear.

You can't look at the Cornhusker Kickback and not tell me that it's the Senate where senators are able to extract significant concessions, due to the fact that every senator is de facto granted the President's veto power.Once again, Jar, I'm forced to wonder if you're even paying attention. You keep saying it's "simple" but none of this is simple. And you keep lying to dodge the questions I'm putting to you. But that's the problem - nobody knows what their Congressmen do. Especially their senators. Less than 26% of voters know what the Senate "filibuster" is, and the rules of the Senate - anonymous holds, anonymous votes, the filibuster - diffuse responsibility for obstruction.Senators want it to be like that. They want to be able to use a de facto veto power to hold up legislation and extract concessions with little to no public remark. They want to be able to use anonymous holds. They want to be able to diffuse responsibility, precisely so that voters cannot hold them accountable for it.

Yet more tap dancing.Somehow, even though you even post the problem and teh solution, it seems that you just don't get it. Yes, the electorate are not educated and don't seem to want to be educated. In the end, it is irrelevant what Senators want, the problem is that the electorate allows them to behave that way.The problem is not the Senate or the Congress or the Executive or the Judicial bodies, the problem is that there is not an educated electorate.Yes, froggie, it really is that simple.

Maybe you'd like to revisit whether you're actually contributing anything to this thread. I keep asking questions and you keep repeating that they're "nonsense", "misrepresentations" (of what?), and then evading them. Speaking of msirepresentations, that's a complete misrepresentation of what I said.If I lie to you and conceal the truth, it's not that you're uneducated, it's that I'm dissembling. The blame has to be put on the Senators and on the rules of the Senate that basically prevent any voter from ascribing legislative outcomes to anybody's agency. Except that it's the Senators, and not the electorate, who determine the rules by which the Senate operates.

Are Senators not elected?