Skip to main content

View Diary: NYT/CBS poll: President Obama and Mitt Romney in dead heat (226 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The reality is that the structure (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, sebastianguy99

    of the Senate is not going to change any time in the foreseeable future.  All the smaller population states would oppose any constitutional amendment to change it, so it would never get the needed supermajorities.

    I see this complaint a lot - the Senate doesn't represent "the people."  The fact is that everyone just has to learn to live with that, because it's not going to change.  

    •  I don't think it was intended to. (0+ / 0-)
      the Senate doesn't represent "the people."

      How many divisions does OWS have?

      by Diebold Hacker on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 09:02:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, you're the one who thinks (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      we need to get a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of the filibuster.

      We've talked before.

      And every time you say the Senate can't change.

      Institutional racism is at the heart of our form of government, in its very structure, and I'll talk about it all I like.

      "The attack on the truth by war begins long before war starts and continues long after a war ends." -Julian Assange

      by Pierro Sraffa on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 09:05:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're wrong. You misstate what I said. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The comment string is here..

        In the first comment, I addressed two things: (1) the design of the Senate, which was not intended to be representative of the people -- and I specifically referred to the "design" of the Senate 3 times; and (2) in a separate paragraph, I mentioned the filibuster rule, which is NOT the "design" of the Senate but has to do with Senate rules.

        A responsive comment said, "then redesign it."  I read that as addressing issue (1) as that has to do with the "design" of the Senate.  The filibuster rule has nothing to do with the "design" of the Senate, but has to do with Senate rules.  

        When I said you needed a constitutional amendment, I was specifically responding to the comment that said to "redesign" the Senate.  For that, yes, you need a constitutional amendment.  Being a history teacher, I'm sure you agree that, to "redesign" the Senate, you need a constitutional amendment.

        A filibuster change, on the other hand, is a change in the Senate rules, not a change in the design of the Senate.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (148)
  • Community (58)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Elections (29)
  • Culture (29)
  • Economy (27)
  • Law (25)
  • Texas (23)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Labor (19)
  • Environment (19)
  • Education (18)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Racism (17)
  • Politics (17)
  • Media (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site