Hello:

Texas is too big.. So is California, Arizona, Florida, NY, and Washington. In California, one senator represents about 18 MILLION people. In Wyoming, one senator represents about 250,000 people. It ain't right, I tell you.

So, according to Article IV, section 3 of the US Constitution,

Quote:

---

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress,

---

I suggest we split California and Florida into THREE states, and Arizona, Washington and NY into TWO. I don't know WHAT to do with Texas. Giving it to the Mexicans comes to mind.. But, I digress..

As you can see, from a legal standpoint, it would be easy to do. That's how West Virginia got created, and in the states I mentioned, there's a logical political divide too. Northern California tends to be a bit more liberal than it's southern counterpart. Same with Washington, Arizona and New York. There may be other states that qualify too.

This way we'd ALL be better represented. Wouldn't we?

Excon

Um, we fought and won Texas from Santa Ana, who had pi$$ed off even the Mexicans living in Texas. Now we have nukes, don't pi$$ us off again.

I'm all for splitting up California though, San Francisco can be its own country.

I've always said that if you could saw off NYC and Long Island at the Hudson River and let them float away ;the whole State would benefit.

Do whatever you want with the rest of the world, but don't mess with Texas!!

Ex there is a lot to be said for less government, that means the less states and the less politicians you have the better. You have some pocket hankichef states over there that really should amalgamated with others to have efficient government. From where we stand Texas is about right for the size of a state, but if you feel you are underrepresented then why not have more representatives and senators for each state

Every State has proportional representation in the House of Reperesentatives . The Senate is different . Every State has 2 Senators. That's the way it is and has been since the Founding . I could get into a detailed explanation why that is so . But suffice it to say that it was part of the compromises amongst the original states when creating the bicameral legislature to ensure that the smaller states weren't dominated by the larger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Every State has proportional representation in the House of Reperesentatives . The Senate is different . Every State has 2 Senators. That's the way it is and has been since the Founding . I could get into a detailed explanation why that is so . But suffice it to say that it was part of the compromises amongst the original states when creating the bicameral legislature to ensure that the smaller states weren't dominated by the larger.

---

Yes we have a similar system although more senators for each state but it is interesting because any new states are not entitled to the same number of senators. What we have found is having more senators doesn't provide better representation because senators aren't there for that purpose that is the purpose of the representatives

In the U.S. senators represent there states, two to a state, and Representatives have the interests of their districts in a particular state. The whole idea is that there is a check and balance in place between the 3 parts of government, representatives, and senators, make of the legislative branch, the Prez, in the White House, and the Supreme Court, housing the 9 judges. They are supposed to be equal, and work together, and that's debatable since the non elected government, composed of banks, and corporations control every freaking' thing, including who the judges, representatives, senators, and the Prez through lobbyists ( for rules and regulations, and campaign money), and direct pay off to politicians, both state, and federal, as well as local.

You have a queen, who is going broke from what I heard, but we still have kings, who are not going broke, and have a hands on approach to the functions of everyone's lives.

Quite a system.

Hello again,

So, here's the problem as I see it... With 60 votes required in the Senate to get any bill passed, do we really want to be held hostage to the Southern states?

excon

You didn't mind it so much when Republicans had a majority that wasn't fillibuster proof.

And as you know ;Senate rules are not set in the Constitution ,they are set each session . But both parties realize that they will not always hold the majority so they don't change the rules often or for issues like denying a region of the country their say.

The South is no longer the solid block that it once was either . Florida is a swing State ;as was New Mexico and Virginia in 2008 . Georgia has one of the youngest populations in the nation ,as young workers have migrated there because of their favorable business environment... and northern liberals ,like locust, having already destroyed their states,migrate south to devour those states in their retirement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

In the U.S. senators represent there states, two to a state, and Representatives have the interests of their districts in a particular state. The whole idea is that there is a check and balance in place between the 3 parts of government, representatives, and senators, make of the legislative branch, the Prez, in the White House, and the Supreme Court, housing the 9 judges. They are supposed to be equal, and work together, and that's debatable since the non elected government, composed of banks, and corporations control every freaking' thing, including who the judges, representatives, senators, and the Prez through lobbyists ( for rules and regulations, and campaign money), and direct pay off to politicians, both state, and federal, as well as local.

---

In fact your system has become ex officio a dictatorship because the President doesn't have equality in the process but rules over it.

Quote:

---

You have a queen, who is going broke from what I heard, but we still have kings, who are not going broke, and have a hands on approach to the functions of everyone's lives.

Quite a system.

---

That is a mistaken idea. The "Queen" is a figurehead, the equivalent of your president here is the Governor-general, a person appointed by Parliament to act in place of the queen. This person acts on the advice of the executive. Our system will remain whether the queen exists or not. The executive branch of government is not in the hands of one person. The real power is in the hands of the legislature and the Senate provides a moderating role. The only kings we have around here are those who live in grass castles or perhaps you could call them dirt castles

Quote:

---

QUOTE by paraclete;
In fact your system has become ex officio a dictatorship because the President doesn't have equality in the process but rules over it.

---

Naw, when the congress doesn't like what the president puts down, they vote against his wishes, and talks about him like a dog. LOL, he wishes he could dictate what he wants!

Quote:

---

That is a mistaken idea. The "Queen" is a figurehead, the equivalent of your president here is the Governor-general, a person appointed by Parliament to act in place of the queen. This person acts on the advice of the executive. Our system will remain whether the queen exists or not. The executive branch of government is not in the hands of one person. The real power is in the hands of the legislature and the Senate provides a moderating role. The only kings we have around here are those who live in grass castles or perhaps you could call them dirt castles

---

We call them corporate board rooms, or golf courses. That's where our kings hang out.

Dictator ? Lol ,even Obama's greatest legislative success was done with little participation from the White House. Properly named it would be called Pelosi-Care .

No one suggested dictators lack facilitators, Tom, the process by which that became law smacks of dictatorship. What is the point of a legislature if they can be bypassed. Are they there to rubber stamp the decisions of the administration? Or to merely decide how the decisions of the administration might be implemented? I am aware that most legislatures operate this way but this is not the way the system should work

I agree of course... however ,you being a proponent of a large centralized government ,I don't see how you can object to a system where the administrator has the most power .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I agree of course ...however ,you being a proponent of a large centralized government ,I don't see how you can object to a system where the administrator has the most power .

---

Checks and balances Tom no one should have all the power

Now that makes sense . So a duly elected legislature that rubber stamps executive decisions can still claim checks and balances . Certainly the US Congress in the 1930s thought they were doing due dilligence as they passed one unconstitutional law and created unconsitutional institutions one after another . I'm sure if you asked them they'd claim they were performing their proper role.
No... the only way to guarantee that is to make sure the central government doesn't get too large.

I disagree Tom, as a weak central government creates a vacuum that allows special interests and corporations to have more power than ordinary people, and those who put the bottom line before the welfare of all the people.

Greed has no ideology, just an agenda.

yeah we need a strong central government .....after all ,when Mussolini was in control the trains ran on time .

We need a strong central government that works effectively because we the people can hire, and fire anyone every TWO years if its not.