www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote: The difference is supposed to be that the Senate represents a longer view, as they have terms three times as long as congressmen, and more importantly that the Senate is a body of equivalent representation for each state; whereas the House has representation for each state proportional to its population.

My point exactly. So, the Senators don't represent the People, they represent the States. Ergo, they represent an institution rather than the population directly. That's perfectly within the description I gave.

Having senators being elected the same way you elect representative just add a superlative political arena that has no inherent differences from the Assembly. It would be nice if, for example, the Senators would be elected with a vote based on your income. Or maybe you could have industries voting for these representative. Or you allot social agents (like unions) to this floor too.

You need something different from the assembly to keep the debate interesting.

There's already a huge difference. Representatives (the term for "assemblymen" rather than senators) are elected for two years as opposed to six for senators; are elected in relatively small local subdivisions within the states as opposed to statewide as senators are; and are subject to different prerequisites.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:It would be nice if, for example, the Senators would be elected with a vote based on your income. Or maybe you could have industries voting for these representative. Or you allot social agents (like unions) to this floor too.

No offense, but those are some of the vilest, scariest ideas I've ever heard about politics.

Mikey wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:It would be nice if, for example, the Senators would be elected with a vote based on your income. Or maybe you could have industries voting for these representative. Or you allot social agents (like unions) to this floor too.

No offense, but those are some of the vilest, scariest ideas I've ever heard about politics.

I know. But sometimes, you need to throw ideas into the pond, even bad ones, so they can be thought about to see what's good and what's bad about it, and make a clear choice in the end.

It's so easy to dismiss some ideas as "it's a bad idea" without giving it a second thought, and I strive to avoid it. Deepcrush's arguments about a flat tax rate in a previous thread were at least worthy of consideration, even if in the end, we decided otherwise.

Same thing here, mesay. There is some good, I think, into at least acknowledging that the richest 10% pay for 90% of the tax receipt of the State, yet get not much in return. The power of these elected official wouldn't be on par with what Senators have, but maybe they could have some different kind of power.

Or the sociat agents thing. If they had a political body they could fully try to integrate and be represented, maybe it would cleanse their influence in the current political system, where they try to overly influence electoral results with campaign contribution and the whole lobbying system.

I'm not sure that would "cleanse" their influence rather than just legitimizing it, while not effecting a change in practical use.

Mikey wrote:I'm not sure that would "cleanse" their influence rather than just legitimizing it, while not effecting a change in practical use.

Legitimize something could mean also more control in place. You just have to forbid interference in other political levels, since they have their own playfield now.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:...the richest 10% pay for 90% of the tax receipt of the State, yet get not much in return...

Sure they do. They get to own people.

Plus, you know, getting to be part of the richest 10%.

Mikey wrote:Plus, you know, getting to be part of the richest 10%.

The richest 10% happens to have little control over how their money is spent by the government.

I am not saying "put the richest 10% in charge". I am saying "let's find a way to make them more represented, so they are less reluctant to pay these taxes". If they have the feeling they have some control over that money spend, maybe things would be a little different.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:The richest 10% happens to have little control over how their money is spent by the government.

What? Who cares? They have absolute control over the vast majority of their money - you know, the part they keep and don't pay to the government.

You're talking about creating a plutocracy, which has no place in the philosophy of the U.S. (Except, of course, the practical advantages that having a shitload of money gets you.)

Mikey wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:The richest 10% happens to have little control over how their money is spent by the government.

What? Who cares? They have absolute control over the vast majority of their money - you know, the part they keep and don't pay to the government.

You're talking about creating a plutocracy, which has no place in the philosophy of the U.S. (Except, of course, the practical advantages that having a shitload of money gets you.)

No, I'm talking about creating a mixed system that incorporates mainly elements of Democracy, but also a tad of plutocracy.

Why are people always jumping the gun when such topics are brushed? Read again: I am not saying we should put the richest in charge. I am saying they should have some sort of representation that has its advantage and limits compared to the main People's assembly.

I oversimplify it because it is an overly simple answer. The fact that one person has more money than another means absolutely F.A. as to whether the former should rule the latter.

Mikey wrote:I oversimplify it because it is an overly simple answer. The fact that one person has more money than another means absolutely F.A. as to whether the former should rule the latter.

I agree.

Which still points out you don't understand my point. I did not say the former should rule the latter. I said the former should have a different representation so he has a different way of playing in the political field than by mere populism of the masses, be it right- or left-wing.

It's not giving the keys of the Government to this "2nd Assembly" (let's call it a "Senate"). But maybe this Senate would be the direct political body to go to for lobbying and making grievance/suggestion to the Government, where the People's Assembly would vote the laws and budget, and the Executive would still be elected by the people.

I understand your point, my hyperbole aside. My point, however, remains this: people should be represented as people - no more so or less so because of how much money they have. Someone with lots of money has the same mechanism to make his point in government as someone with no money - vote for the candidates of their choice.

Mikey wrote:I understand your point, my hyperbole aside. My point, however, remains this: people should be represented as people - no more so or less so because of how much money they have. Someone with lots of money has the same mechanism to make his point in government as someone with no money - vote for the candidates of their choice.

But right now, in the U.S., people aren't represented as people. They are represented as both State and People.

Do you think it's unfair? Maybe. But it's also the right thing, so the smaller state don't feel left out of the electoral game just because they happen to have a lesser demographic, and it makes those states to still be engaged in the whole process rather than being sidelined as unimportant.

The whole representativity for the States gives the bigger end of the stick to these smaller states in the Senate, while the bigger states have the bigger end of the stick in the lower chamber. It's an interesting equilibrium that seems to satisfy no one and everyone, and thus is very optimal.

What I propose is something similar, where the bigger end of the stick is held both by the People and by the Taxpayers, at different levels, so both have to consider the other in the Grand Political Scheme.

Well, then we understand each other and just disagree. IMHO, a person's ability to achieve any political effect should have no causal relationship with that person's liquidity. As of right now, that still happens - just in an unofficial manner.