the reason we tolerate the Senate is because we're used to it. that's it. there is no other reason. it transparently doesn't serve to make the federal government more rational or effective. it just reduces and concentrates the surface area of corruption. it's a vulnerability.
-
-
Replying to @danlistensto @AlexGodofsky
also because brute forcing constitutional change would sort of wreck the constitutional compact and its just not worth it for those who would expect first order wins "hahahaha finally proportionate representation over a smoking crater"
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I don't think any faction should expect to get what they want out of a major change to the constitution. I think it should be changed because it's broken.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto @Aelkus and
also, the filibuster is a parliamentary procedural rule that managed to find a loophole to exploit in the way congressional debate is conducted. it was prominent, but not a fundamental structure defined by the constitution.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @Aelkus and
the underlying problem being the constitutional structures defined to control the appointment of high stakes positions (particularly supreme court justices) was broken because the Senate is broken.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto @Aelkus and
I don't understand the point of the word "broken" unless you're suggesting that it in the past it used to function correctly as designed but now (or recently) stopped doing so. When did it work correctly, in your opinion; and why did it stop?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Bugs_Meany @Aelkus and
it never functioned correctly. it was broken at inception. the Senate is one of the reasons legal slavery persisted all the way until 1863 and it caused absurd distortions like states being admitted in pairs (1 free and 1 slave) in the antebellum period.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @Bugs_Meany and
it's an institution that is defined by dysfunction. it was, from the start, supposed to be a way to make the workings of government more capturable by elite interests against the interests of the people.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @Bugs_Meany and
checks on vulgar populism have a place but the U.S. Senate is such an extreme case of anti-democratic "rigging" of the system that it has resulted in dysfunctional bad government for centuries.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
aaaafgghh compared to WHAT
-
-
Replying to @eigenrobot @Bugs_Meany and
the natural comparison is to the governments of the U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. they seem to have done all right without a powerful Senate. crippling the House of Lords was a good decision.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @Bugs_Meany and
probably not the best time to cite the UK
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.