American 2008 Election

[nazaguy 0]

The Democrats need to stop the infighting! Despite Iraq, the troubles with the economy, the environment, phone tapping, the fact that Bin Ladens still free, a weak dollar, more America-hating countries then usual, and one of the most unpopular presidents in history, they still can't use this opportunity to trash the Republicans. Its painful to watch!

[Voar Tok 4]

The Governator can't hold the office of VP. It has to be someone who can assume the Presidency if needed, and Arnold is not legally allowed to be President.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: nazaguy The Democrats need to stop the infighting! Despite Iraq, the troubles with the economy, the environment, phone tapping, the fact that Bin Ladens still free, a weak dollar, more America-hating countries then usual, and one of the most unpopular presidents in history, they still can't use this opportunity to trash the Republicans. Its painful to watch!quote>

 

Not for everyone. 

The Dems are just proving what their Achille's Heel is. The Democratic party is a conglomeration of different special interests, and are more prone to infighting because these differing groups are going to find themselves at cross-purposes eventually. Until recently, Repubs tend to get along better because they unite behind one broad perspective, Conservatism. The rest gets hashed out in committee.

[yoder7652 21]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

The thing is that Hillary will still not have a realistic position for the nomination. She simply does not have the numbers.quote>

Oh I know that, but to be honest, I don't think that is going to be as important as I previously though. The super delegates, as I stated previously are going to decide and no-one really knows what they will go with or how they will decide.quote>

 

The super delegates will not go against the popular vote (maybe the delegate totals, but not the popular vote)...the party of Thomas Jefferson won't do that.

[belfastuniguy 18]

The super delegates will not go against the popular vote (maybe the delegate totals, but not the popular vote)...the party of Thomas Jefferson won't do that.quote>

That's my point, Hillary is very likely to take the popular the vote if she wins in Pennsylvania, which she is pretty likely to do. I've stated this a few times here. I do think by the summer Obama will have the greater number of delegates but Hillary will have the popular vote. Then the super-delegates will have that choice to make. Though several people has so far stated to me that popular vote is not always important, I disagree.

I also agree with the point someone made about the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot in the way they award delegates. I would have liked to see the winner in each state tale all the candidates and not the proportional system the democrats use. I think this recent election race will make them look at the rules again.

[yoder7652 21]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

The super delegates will not go against the popular vote (maybe the delegate totals, but not the popular vote)...the party of Thomas Jefferson won't do that.quote>

That's my point, Hillary is very likely to take the popular the vote if she wins in Pennsylvania, which she is pretty likely to do. I've stated this a few times here. I do think by the summer Obama will have the greater number of delegates but Hillary will have the popular vote. Then the super-delegates will have that choice to make. Though several people has so far stated to me that popular vote is not always important, I disagree.

I also agree with the point someone made about the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot in the way they award delegates. I would have liked to see the winner in each state tale all the candidates and not the proportional system the democrats use. I think this recent election race will make them look at the rules again.quote>

 

Hillary will not win the popular vote....without recounts in Michigan and Florida (which are not going to happen) there is no chance for her to win. To even come close she would need huge victories in Penn. and W. Virginia that just aren't shaping up. I will be somewhat surprised if she will take it to convention, especially since her election money is starting to dry up.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9147.html

[Frankie_Grove 33]

Originally posted by: yoder7652

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

The thing is that Hillary will still not have a realistic position for the nomination. She simply does not have the numbers.quote>

Oh I know that, but to be honest, I don't think that is going to be as important as I previously though. The super delegates, as I stated previously are going to decide and no-one really knows what they will go with or how they will decide.quote>

 

The super delegates will not go against the popular vote (maybe the delegate totals, but not the popular vote)...the party of Thomas Jefferson won't do that.quote>

Super delegates have gone against the popular vote. They can do whatever they want. There were several who had already chosen the candidate they were going to throw their support behind. I was watching the Colbert Report, and one of the super delegates came on the show and claimed he was for Obama, in a time when he was still several percentage points behind Hillary. They also got into a discussion how super delegates don't have to go by the popular vote, and can do whatever they please because of their status.

[yoder7652 21]

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

Originally posted by: yoder7652

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

The thing is that Hillary will still not have a realistic position for the nomination. She simply does not have the numbers.quote>

Oh I know that, but to be honest, I don't think that is going to be as important as I previously though. The super delegates, as I stated previously are going to decide and no-one really knows what they will go with or how they will decide.quote>

 

The super delegates will not go against the popular vote (maybe the delegate totals, but not the popular vote)...the party of Thomas Jefferson won't do that.quote>

Super delegates have gone against the popular vote. They can do whatever they want. There were several who had already chosen the candidate they were going to throw their support behind. I was watching the Colbert Report, and one of the super delegates came on the show and claimed he was for Obama, in a time when he was still several percentage points behind Hillary. They also got into a discussion how super delegates don't have to go by the popular vote, and can do whatever they please because of their status.quote>

 

Individual super delegates have declared support...yes. But that doesn't mean that they are stuck with their decision. After the last state has spoken, the collective of super delegates will not through their support behind the candidate with the least popular vote. Super delegates can change their mind who they support any time up to and during the convention. Remember...Howard Dean had the support of the super delegates early on and as he began to lose primaries and caucuses they jumped ship....

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

The super delegates will not go against the popular vote (maybe the delegate totals, but not the popular vote)...the party of Thomas Jefferson won't do that.quote>

That's my point, Hillary is very likely to take the popular the vote if she wins in Pennsylvania, which she is pretty likely to do. I've stated this a few times here. I do think by the summer Obama will have the greater number of delegates but Hillary will have the popular vote. Then the super-delegates will have that choice to make. Though several people has so far stated to me that popular vote is not always important, I disagree.quote>

 

It really isn't, and from the legal standpoint, I don't see how you can think that it actually carries weight.  There's no binding obligation so, ultimately, how does it actually matter?  It's only value is a no-obligations guideline on how the people of your state want you to vote.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Well yes for Americans it doesn't seem to matter. I'm just giving my personal opinion.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

I find it interesting that 'class warfare' is inherent in the democratic party's very structure, IE 'superdelegates' and 'regular delegates'.

[belfastuniguy 18]

I though America was meant to be a classless society

[ccecill 52]

Originally posted by: blade2k5 I think the Dems have already lost the election as they have shot themselves in the foot with their idiotic rules about the primaries....and it's their own fault. What a mess they've gotten themselves into....and I was going to vote democrat this time around, but now...forget it.quote>

Yeah... and rather than vote based on opinion, you've decided to choose the leader of the free world based on the rules of his/her shoddy party? Kudos to you.

Really, do I need to rant about the winner take all system in the Republican primary? Do you want me to harp on how they, even after the primaries, can run away with the presidency and congress because of our current electoral system and foolish, deceptive American power structure?

Remember, the Dems have had this primary system and its rules for ages... and they've produced numerous presidential winners... (Bill Clinton being one of them) so how could this be the miraculous primary which produces a loser? Easy answer: It's not going to.

Sorry. Unfortunately, just because CNN hollers about something every day doesn't mean you know what you're talking about when you regurgitate and exaggerate it. In fact, I would say it's insulting to assume that America is so obtuse to go as far as skipping on Obama because of what Howard Dean did... and to be honest, where was Dean wrong? No one gave a crap about this back in August 2007, when Florida was stripped... we knew the possible consequences, but didn't care... we were too busy fawning over Hillary and Obama to think about who was actually going to win and what, as a consequence, would happen.

But oh sweet Jesus we care now! (Although we know EXACTLY now what we knew then) This proves that you can get mindless attention towards ANYTHING if you just put it on television... maybe we should get NBC and FOX news to chronicle the deaths and misery ravaging Darfur everyday... then maybe someone will give a rat's arse about that!

Look, if you're angry with the DNC for going to what you may consider to be extremes, then that's fine by me... but don't single them out as if they're the only wrongdoers in American politics... and even by considering this election over the electoral system and the three headed monster, you're inferring that it's more important. It is, of course, not.

There's much bigger issues to tackle... For example, I live in Mississippi, and my vote for the presidency won't count in a dark red state that's winner take all. Furthermore, my two state senators (Cochran-R and Wicker-R) are the voice of MS (pop. 3 mil.) in the U.S. senate. In California (pop. 36 mil), however, their two state senators (Boxer-D and Feinstein-D) are the voice of a MUCH larger state (12x the size of MS) but have the EXACT SAME SAY.... I don't see anyone out protesting that.. Republican or Democrat. Is Anderson Cooper or Brit Hume going to have to shout about this all day to get people angry? Will this have to be plastered on the news channels of America until people begin protesting this? Unfortunately, yes.

To sum: The American political process is a joke, and the American political power structure is a sham... Unfortunately, the best looking guys who visit the most churches and kiss the most babies are awarded power in a system that doesn't even fully represent the voice of the people who elected the scumbags into office. Little Wyoming and Mississippi - dark red states - are awarded the same voice as massive New York and California - dark blue states, and, to my dismay, no one is trying to change it, and to be honest, no one really gives a damn...

So, if you're going to get angry at someth

[hym 358]

There's much bigger issues to tackle... For example, I live in Mississippi, and my vote for the presidency won't count in a dark red state that's winner take all. Furthermore, my two state senators (Cochran-R and Wicker-R) are the voice of MS (pop. 3 mil.) in the U.S. senate. In California (pop. 36 mil), however, their two state senators (Boxer-D and Feinstein-D) are the voice of a MUCH larger state (12x the size of MS) but have the EXACT SAME SAY.... I don't see anyone out protesting that.. Republican or Democrat. Is Anderson Cooper or Brit Hume going to have to shout about this all day to get people angry? Will this have to be plastered on the news channels of America until people begin protesting this? Unfortunately, yes.

To sum: The American political process is a joke, and the American political power structure is a sham... Unfortunately, the best looking guys who visit the most churches and kiss the most babies are awarded power in a system that doesn't even fully represent the voice of the people who elected the scumbags into office. Little Wyoming and Mississippi - dark red states - are awarded the same voice as massive New York and California - dark blue states, and, to my dismay, no one is trying to change it, and to be honest, no one really gives a damn...quote>

They have the same number of votes because that's how the Senate is set up. Every state gets an equal voice in the process, while the House of Representatives is allocated by population. That was the Great Compromise that made it possible to have the Constitution in the first place. It has been said, and probably rightly so, that had the Connecticut Compromise not happened, the committee for developing the Constitution would have likely failed, and we still might have a system of government where the states basically ruled everything because the federal government was too weak to even warrant its own existence.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

ccecill: The states have Congressional Reps that are based on population. The system is completely described in the Constitution, it's worth reading. And I, for one, would never support a system that gives any more power to Boxer or Feinstein...they've done enough damage.

The Electoral College was created for a good reason, and the reason still stands: To prevent a few states from overrunning the will of the rest of the country. It was and still is a State's Rights issue. California doesn't have more rights than Mississippi does due to its size, and should not.

IMHO the interdependency (checks and balances) of the system is brilliant. It's the people, both in the system and those governed by it, that are the problem. It's a gov't "By, for, and of, the people"...meaning it's only as good as, well,... the people. And there's nothing un-American about corrupt and contentious politicians squabbling over rules they agreed on long ago.

[ccecill 52]

They have the same number of votes because that's how the Senate is set up. Every state gets an equal voice in the process, while the House of Representatives is allocated by population. That was the Great Compromise that made it possible to have the Constitution in the first place. It has been said, and probably rightly so, that had the Connecticut Compromise not happened, the committee for developing the Constitution would have likely failed, and we still might have a system of government where the states basically ruled everything because the federal government was too weak to even warrant its own existence.quote>

Of course, everything you said was spot on. But, 1) that was 221 years ago, in an infant nation divided over states rights issues 2) That doesn't mean that need for reform is nullified simply because of possibly worse outcomes...

That's like someone in the early 1900's preaching equality and touting the Emancipation Proclamation as a great move that could've prevented something much worse, but all the while dismissing injustice and racism. So, in essence, that person has confused pushing towards freedom with actually being free... just as it seems that you, hym, have the act of pushing towards democracy, and truly living democratically, confused.   of course, what we're witnessing now isn't as drastic as the example above, but it's similar, and the first thing I came up with.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: ccecill

There's much bigger issues to tackle... For example, I live in Mississippi, and my vote for the presidency won't count in a dark red state that's winner take all. Furthermore, my two state senators (Cochran-R and Wicker-R) are the voice of MS (pop. 3 mil.) in the U.S. senate. In California (pop. 36 mil), however, their two state senators (Boxer-D and Feinstein-D) are the voice of a MUCH larger state (12x the size of MS) but have the EXACT SAME SAY.... I don't see anyone out protesting that.. Republican or Democrat. Is Anderson Cooper or Brit Hume going to have to shout about this all day to get people angry? Will this have to be plastered on the news channels of America until people begin protesting this? Unfortunately, yes.

To sum: The American political process is a joke, and the American political power structure is a sham... Unfortunately, the best looking guys who visit the most churches and kiss the most babies are awarded power in a system that doesn't even fully represent the voice of the people who elected the scumbags into office. Little Wyoming and Mississippi - dark red states - are awarded the same voice as massive New York and California - dark blue states, and, to my dismay, no one is trying to change it, and to be honest, no one really gives a damn...quote>

I'm guessing you haven't done a serious study of the Constitution.  I understand your frustration, but it seems that you're missing a critical point.  Each state, regardless of the population, has only two seats in the Senate because the Senate was not created to represent you at the national level.  That's the job of the House of Reps.  Until the 17th Amendment, people didn't vote for their state senators, as they were picked by the legislature of the state they were representing.  Which leads to the fact that because Senators are actually there to represent the interests of your state instead of you, all the states get an equal voice in the Senate.

Now, in the House of Reps, where the people are there to represent you, you'll notice that California, a solidly blue state, has 53 seats.  Mississippi, a solidly red state, has 4 seats.  Long story short, California has nine times the clout that Mississippi has when it comes to electing the President.  This is why no one is trying to fix the problem - there is no problem to fix.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy I though America was meant to be a classless society quote>

Show me where we said that.

America believes in equal opportunity.  Everyone starts at the same starting line, but where you end up on it is up to you.  There will be the rich, the poor, the powerful, and the weak.  The only thing we set out to do was to give everyone the freedom to do what they want.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[ccecill 52]

Originally posted by: manticorefan ccecill: The states have Congressional Reps that are based on population. The system is completely described in the Constitution, it's worth reading. And I, for one, would never support a system that gives any more power to Boxer or Feinstein...they've done enough damage.quote>

1. True, the House seats are awarded based on population... and the Senate should be run in the same fashion.

2. On boxer and feinstein: Regardless of your opinion on them, if 12 million Californians say they want Barbara Boxer and 1.5 million Mississippians say they want Roger Wicker, then we need either A) more dems like Boxer in the senate representing Californians or B) a louder voice from Boxer in the Senate. It sounds as if you people have absolutely no regard for the voice of the majority in American politics. Instead of saying what you really feel, you quote the Constitution - a document you and I obviously know well. I'm sorry If I'm tired of a government that looks good on paper, but rarely works efficiently in real life... but it's atrocious what some podunk backwoods republicans or some free love, hippie democrats can get away with if they just move to a small state and vote...

The Electoral College was created for a good reason, and the reason still stands: To prevent a few states from overrunning the will of the rest of the country. It was and still is a State's Rights issue. California doesn't have more rights than Mississippi does due to its size, and should not.quote>

And to achieve that "balance", my vote can't be counted? If John McCain gets 50.00000001% of the vote in Mississippi, then not one EC vote goes for me? That's the pseudo democracy you want?

What's so wrong with desiring to live in a country in which the winner of most votes actually WINS??? The continual usage of this vile, disgusting feature of American presidential elections is a profound insult to those of us who actually want to be heard and have some regard for equality. It was established to keep the trigger happy, state's rights loving, white trash slave owners from revolting... and it seems to have endured due to the outright greediness of the right, who could by no means stay competitive in today's political field w/o the EC... America, let's re examine this. And call me when you've decided to participate in, and not watch, elections...

IMHO the interdependency (checks and balances) of the system is brilliant. It's the people, both in the system and those governed by it, that are the problem. It's a gov't "By, for, and of, the people"...meaning it's only as good as, well,... the people. And there's nothing un-American about corrupt and contentious politicians squabbling over rules they agreed on long ago.quote>

If you enjoy deadlock, watching Pansy Nanci battle Curious George over the airways, witnessing endless vetos that go against the collective opinion of the country, listening to the uniform rants of a common hatred towards American politics and politicians, and watching about every major piece of legislation, despite public opinion, lay in limbo, then yes... the three headed monster (courtesy of Montesquieu) is delightful... really, I think I'd rather have a Parliament...

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

You want direct democracy. It's not possible. The mess it would make of the system would far outweigh any perceived results. Overnight (or more accurately, in 10-15 years) you get 3000 political parties, and the poor selling their votes for $1 like in Chicago's heyday. No deal.

[ccecill 52]

"3000 political parties" vs. 30000000000000 centrists, independents, and cynics (what we have now)

the poor selling votes for $1 vs. the leftists in Texas or the right wingers in Seattle wasting time on the ballot and $$ in gas money to get to it (what we have now)

I'd take the former, plz.

[hym 358]

So, in short, the proposed system, ideally implemented, would abolish the Senate.

[ccecill 52]

Either...

1. Abolish the Senate

2. Give states weight based on pop...

3. Give Senators weight based on his/her state's pop...

EDIT...

Also..

- Destroy the Electoral College

[hym 358]

Well, seeing as how all three solutions require the approval of the Senate, the House of Representatives, the President, and 3/4 states, I don't think it'll happen anytime soon.

[Duke87 1,070]

I'll grant you this- it may, at first glance, seem a bit unfair that California and Wyoming both get equal weight in the senate when one is about 70 times the size of the other.

But again, it is ultimately about states rights. The people of Wyoming would never be able to get anything in Wyoming's best interest put forward if the senate weren't "two for every state".

It's interesting that way. Small states wanted equal say and therefore equal representation, large states wanted more say and population based representation. Things were divided right down the middle on the matter of which was better, and the answer was simple: "well, we can't choose which one to do, so why don't we do both?". And so they did.

There are obvious downsides to both methods, and by doing both you get the best of both worlds.... in theory, anyway. Nowadays an awful lot of congressmen effectively represent big business or religious ideology as opposed to the people of their district.

Now then, to conclude, and to be a bit more on topic, let's have a little humor. I give you: The Hope for Obama's Change Bill. Be sure to read the whole thing. Don't worry, it's not that long.

[ccecill 52]

"It's interesting that way" <--- and of course that constitutes stripping rights from americans...

Anyway, that's over... and it's a near impossible feat. If only we had.... CECIL!!

[Frankie_Grove 33]

The Senate was created to give equal numeric representation, the House is allocated base on the population of the states, there are 435 seats, and they are often times re-distributed to compensate for growth/loss of population throughout the US. The system was created as a compromise, to ensure that both sides of the disagreement could have their way.

The sad thing about our political parties is the fact that they really don't represent much of what their supporters are for. Republicans are loosely united under their economic conservatism policies, and not much else. The Democratic party has such a large variety of viewpoints thrown into one group that there is hardly any agreement, causing staggering differences within the party. Most Democrats only claim such title because there is no other way, similar to how a lot of people call themselves "Liberal" without knowing what it means, it's really not helping anyone. Democrats outnumber Republicans quite a bit, but when it comes down to it, elections rely on swing voters for victory (you have people who vote Republican or Democrat every time regardless, so their votes aren't as "important" because the candidates can count on their automatic support).

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: ccecill

2. On boxer and feinstein: Regardless of your opinion on them, if 12 million Californians say they want Barbara Boxer and 1.5 million Mississippians say they want Roger Wicker, then we need either A) more dems like Boxer in the senate representing Californians or B) a louder voice from Boxer in the Senate. It sounds as if you people have absolutely no regard for the voice of the majority in American politics. Instead of saying what you really feel, you quote the Constitution - a document you and I obviously know well. I'm sorry If I'm tired of a government that looks good on paper, but rarely works efficiently in real life... but it's atrocious what some podunk backwoods republicans or some free love, hippie democrats can get away with if they just move to a small state and vote...quote>

Instead of saying what you actually feel?  You make it sound as though someone wouldn't agree with the Constitution if they felt that they could say that.  What about those of us who would concur with it anyway?  I'm all for the populous getting their voice heard, but that's what the House of Representatives is for.  The Senate was not designed for that purpose, and IMHO, it's pointless to try to get them to function like the House when that's not what they're supposed to be doing.

The Electoral College was created for a good reason, and the reason still stands: To prevent a few states from overrunning the will of the rest of the country. It was and still is a State's Rights issue. California doesn't have more rights than Mississippi does due to its size, and should not.quote>

And to achieve that "balance", my vote can't be counted? If John McCain gets 50.00000001% of the vote in Mississippi, then not one EC vote goes for me? That's the pseudo democracy you want?

What's so wrong with desiring to live in a country in which the winner of most votes actually WINS??? The continual usage of this vile, disgusting feature of American presidential elections is a profound insult to those of us who actually want to be heard and have some regard for equality. It was established to keep the trigger happy, state's rights loving, white trash slave owners from revolting... and it seems to have endured due to the outright greediness of the right, who could by no means stay competitive in today's political field w/o the EC... America, let's re examine this. And call me when you've decided to participate in, and not watch, elections...quote>

Well, let's analyze this.  First off, while the electoral college is pointless at this stage in the country's history, it's still there because most Americans don't have a big enough issue with it to get it abolished.  Now, the Senate exists the way it does because all those state's rights loving, white trash slave owners in small states like Rhode Island  and Delaware refused to lend any support to a new government that didn't get them some sort of equal voice with the larger states.

IMHO the interdependency (checks and balances) of the system is brilliant. It's the people, both in the system and those governed by it, that are the problem. It's a gov't "By, for, and of, the people"...meaning it's only as good as, well,... the people. And there's nothing un-American about corrupt and contentious politicians squabbling over rules they agreed on long ago.quote>

If you enjoy deadlock, watching Pansy Nanci battle Curious George over the airways, witnessing endless vetos that go against the collective opinion of the country, listening to the uniform rants of a common hatred towards American politics and politicians, and watching abo

[ccecill 52]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: ccecill

2. On boxer and feinstein: Regardless of your opinion on them, if 12 million Californians say they want Barbara Boxer and 1.5 million Mississippians say they want Roger Wicker, then we need either A) more dems like Boxer in the senate representing Californians or B) a louder voice from Boxer in the Senate. It sounds as if you people have absolutely no regard for the voice of the majority in American politics. Instead of saying what you really feel, you quote the Constitution - a document you and I obviously know well. I'm sorry If I'm tired of a government that looks good on paper, but rarely works efficiently in real life... but it's atrocious what some podunk backwoods republicans or some free love, hippie democrats can get away with if they just move to a small state and vote...quote>

Instead of saying what you actually feel?  You make it sound as though someone wouldn't agree with the Constitution if they felt that they could say that.  What about those of us who would concur with it anyway?  I'm all for the populous getting their voice heard, but that's what the House of Representatives is for.  The Senate was not designed for that purpose, and IMHO, it's pointless to try to get them to function like the House when that's not what they're supposed to be doing.quote>

Then don't call this a democracy.

Nowhere did I say (or did I infer) that your opinions were or were not based on the Constitution... It was you who took my words of context. What I said was "Instead of saying what you really feel, you quote the constitution."

And you did that. You gave no rationale for being pro-status-quo Senate. You gave me a meaningless fact that everyone knew. Not a contention, a fact.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: ccecill

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: ccecill

2. On boxer and feinstein: Regardless of your opinion on them, if 12 million Californians say they want Barbara Boxer and 1.5 million Mississippians say they want Roger Wicker, then we need either A) more dems like Boxer in the senate representing Californians or B) a louder voice from Boxer in the Senate. It sounds as if you people have absolutely no regard for the voice of the majority in American politics. Instead of saying what you really feel, you quote the Constitution - a document you and I obviously know well. I'm sorry If I'm tired of a government that looks good on paper, but rarely works efficiently in real life... but it's atrocious what some podunk backwoods republicans or some free love, hippie democrats can get away with if they just move to a small state and vote...quote>

Instead of saying what you actually feel?  You make it sound as though someone wouldn't agree with the Constitution if they felt that they could say that.  What about those of us who would concur with it anyway?  I'm all for the populous getting their voice heard, but that's what the House of Representatives is for.  The Senate was not designed for that purpose, and IMHO, it's pointless to try to get them to function like the House when that's not what they're supposed to be doing.quote>

Then don't call this a democracy.quote>

If I remember correctly, the US was designed as a Constitutional republic.  Additionally, depending on who you ask, one of the goals of a republic is the protection of minority opinions from simply being squelched by the majority.