@GhostOnTheHalfShell @Piousunyn @Skirnir @tofugolem @beautfc
On the upside, at least the Senate is more democratic than it was. As I recall, originally the House members of each state voted for that state's Senators, and direct (i. e. more democratic) Senate elections came later.
@DopeGhoti @GhostOnTheHalfShell @Piousunyn @Skirnir @tofugolem
@beautfc
The Senate was originally chosen by each state's legislature. Nothing said about it being anti-democratic and pro-slavery is wrong, but here's my deeply unpopular take. Making the Senate an elected body full of politicians was one of the worst decisions made in US history. That said, looking at modern state legislatures there's no way the Senate wouldn't be a corrupt mess anyway, but, having it as a seat of non-political, learned individuals wasn't a bad idea, just impossible to do in real life.
@BE @DopeGhoti @GhostOnTheHalfShell @Piousunyn @Skirnir @beautfc
If we still had the old system, then the Senate would be hopelessly Republican-dominated.
On the flipside, maybe that would force people to pay more attention to state elections.
@tofugolem @DopeGhoti @GhostOnTheHalfShell @Piousunyn @Skirnir @beautfc
Absolutely, and the reason I said it would end up today just as corrupt is because politicians simply choosing the senate wouldn't be much better.
The original *idea* however, of a non-political body staffed by doctors and professors, etc. for one term each holds merit. Imagine the former guy's impeachment with a non-political senate, for example. Parts of the system, like that, don't work because a non-political body was replaced with a political one.
*Everything* is so political now, though, I don't suspect you could pull it off in real life.
@BE @DopeGhoti @GhostOnTheHalfShell @Piousunyn @Skirnir @beautfc
But everything is politics, particularly everything the government does.
"Non-political" is just a fantasy for people who like the status quo in my experience.
@tofugolem @DopeGhoti @GhostOnTheHalfShell @Piousunyn @Skirnir @beautfc
How about non-partisan in its place?
@BE @DopeGhoti @GhostOnTheHalfShell @Piousunyn @Skirnir @beautfc
Oof. That conjures images of op-ed pieces in major newspapers about "polarization," doesn't it?
https://www.getrevue.co/profile/juliusgoat/issues/polarization-and-strife-922845
@tofugolem @DopeGhoti @GhostOnTheHalfShell @Piousunyn @Skirnir @beautfc
No, not at all, IMO. I don't care about the modern interpretation of non-partisan and arguments about polarization. I'm talking about the 1700's idea of having a non-partisan body of government to balance out the House and whether that would be superior to the Senate we have today.
Again, can it be implemented in the current environment in the real world of today? No, I do not think so. But the mind experiment of what was supposed to be is helpful to understand the dysfunction of the modern Congress.
@tofugolem @DopeGhoti @GhostOnTheHalfShell @Piousunyn @Skirnir @beautfc
I think our definitions of partisan are just different in this case. I suspect, yes, the founding fathers wanted a Senate that would uphold landowner's rights. If not be definition then by circumstance.
The idea of the Senate, according to Madison(and my understanding of what the idea was goes along with this) was that it have "more wisdom" than the "popular branch"(the House). The idea was to free it from politics and to have scholars(of course, to be a scholar you likely had to have come from a wealthy family) and free-thinkers balancing out the whims of the House.
@BE @DopeGhoti @GhostOnTheHalfShell @Piousunyn @Skirnir @beautfc
But even the founding fathers intended something very partisan. They expected something that would uphold landowners and screw non-landowners, and that's exactly what the courts delivered.
Traditionally, the courts uphold sociopolitical hierarchies above just about any other consideration. The rulings conservatives complain about have generally been few and far between.