You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #10: It doesn't take much to be considered "liberal" in the US Senate. Allow me to explain. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. It doesn't take much to be considered "liberal" in the US Senate. Allow me to explain.
Take the state of Mississippi and the state of California. In the US Senate, both of them get two seats, yet California is many times larger in terms of population than Mississippi. Essentially, there is a built-in bias in favor of small states. Incidentally, that means the Senate chamber is biased in favor of Republicans. In an election between a center-rightist and a far-rightist, a center-leftist would be considered "far left."

The Senate was envisioned as a compromise between small states and large states at the last constitutional convention; however, at the time political parties in the US had not yet come into formal existence. If political parties were a regular fixture of politics in those days, I'm fairly sure the Senate would not exist or exist in a different form because few of the larger states would agree to such a handicap. Likely, the system would've more resembled a parliamentary system built on something like proportional representation as opposed to our presidential system. In such a system, it's extremely difficult for one party to gain a majority of the seats, and people like Washington would've rather that be the case because they distrusted political parties.

As it stands, our system can enable one party to gain domination over all branches of government. That way lies tyranny, and if we had to build a new country from scratch, I would be extremely opposed to re-instituting the presidential system.

Our system won't change unless major stress is applied. Unfortunately, I believe the only reason FDR won was because of the Great Depression. Without it, people like him could not have gained power. I don't honestly see any evidence that America will elect another person with views in common to the Social Democrat or even Socialists unless there was no option left, and that's the real tragedy. Like a bunch of people in a cave who refuse to see the light at the entrance of the cave to escape.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC