Do you have a citation to back up you viewpoint?

Are you sure Senators are not supposed to represent their entire state?

In all my government studies, I have never come across any citation that states that Senators only represent the people who voted for him or her.

That would make sense and we can't have that.

Cryptic titles bug me almost as much as when people make a new thread and only include a hyperlink... no comment.. no discussion, just a hyperlink :damn:

This.

He's the guy who came up with the "magic bullet theory". Wonder what's going on...:hmmm:

Umm, that's the nature of a democratic republic. That's why the majority selects the representative, and representing that majority would constitute representing the state.

I thought this would be a pretty obvious point. Especially considering that it is completely impossible to represent all of the diverse viewpoints held in a state.

It takes the veto of 60 (of 100) senators to prevent the degeneration of democratic basic principles and freedom of speech by filibustering, and every step and every measurement making such a majority to prevent filibusters more likely should be welcomed and seen as a step to give the house back some of its intended dignity, no matter all other things that can be said about politics, politicians and the senate. That filibusters still are considered a legal tool of parliamentary debate, is a scandal. One could as well consider it legal to serve members of opposing opinion drinks with knockout drops. The basic attitude is the same like behind filibustering.

That is an interesting opinion on civics. Thanks for sharing. :)

Here, to better summarize: A senator represents his entire state - but, does so via the viewpoint of the majority, who is determined by who elects said senator. Understand?

Hold the phone people!

At best he will be a blue dog democrat. He opposes the Employee Free Choice Act. And the only reason he switched is because he could not take the heat of an upcoming GOP primary.

Why some Dems think this + Franken finally being seated will be the end of all problems is beyond me!

SteamW if you make a title that is so confusing you ought to expect multiple threads.

Please be clear with the thread titles in the future.. Thanks.

I love it. I've always had great respect for the man, despite our few differences. He's great at what he does. I for one am thankful for him becoming a Dem. :yeah:

Ha! :har:

I would really laugh if the democrats in PA would primary his butt out of office, but seeing that he is senior senator wielding alot of power and influence I am sure the PA democratic party will welcome him with open arms.

Specter is just wearing appropriate clothes now. He was always dem.

-S

I'm actually a fan of the filibuster. Complete rule by one party is dangerous - and I'm saying that as a liberal. The filibuster gives the majority party a reason to still listen to the minority party. It's a useful tool to stop the tyranny of the majority. From 2002 to 2006 the filibuster was almost the only check on Republican power. I was absolutely terrified when the GOP started talking about the nuclear option.

I always get ticked off when libertarians whine that our government needs to be more efficient. Our government is deliberately inefficient for a very good reason, and the filibuster is an important part of that.

Although I think libertarians are referring to a different type of efficiency (fiscal), I do see your point and agree with a lot of what this post says.

As Aramike pointed out, we are usually referring to fiscal efficiency.
When it comes to legislation or other issues we simply prefer to limit the power of the state as much as possible. Imo, since the state does everything wrong and wastes a lot of money doing it, why let them do anything at all? The Constitution, when strictly adhered to, does a pretty good job of that, why not use it?
That is not to say that there cannot be states that have significant legislative power, we just want to make sure that that power is not centralized. When California's liberal agenda rips the state economy all to hell, people have the freedom to move to other states. When the Federal government ruins the economy or makes unwise policy decisions, the only choice is to move to another country. Granted, they are still free to move, but it is a lot more difficult.
Of course, decentralizing the government makes it more efficient in the legislative capacity as well. Representatives are closer to their constituency and can address their needs more effectively, without involving other states.

Like you, I also favor fillibustering because I think concentrations of power are dangerous. Is it such a leap to simply limit and decentralize state power so that they are not necessary? We wouldn't all have to pay for each other's policy mistakes, and we'd be free to adopt successful policy. It would be more effective, and more efficient;)

False. And absurd.

Disagree.

Somehow I don't think Skybird would be disagreeing if it were the Republicans in control...