"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote:
>
> Geoff Tillman wrote:
> >
> > True, but to have a voice in congress and the choosing of the
> > president you have to be a state. Puerto Rico and Guam will
> > probably gain statehood eventually. As to the flag if more
> > states join more stars are added. Their are designs already
> > made which have 51-60 stars (just in case). Everytime a state
> > has join it has always gotten a star. And lets not forget
> > that their were originally 13 states not 50. And Alaska and
> > Hawaii did not acheive statehood untill 1959 and 1960
> > respectfully.
>
> I was recently musing that the Senate was originally intended to have 26
> members... maybe a few more as time went on, but still 26 originally. A
> small, tight group; not like a Senate of 100 at all. One Senator of 26,
> nationwide, would have considerably more prestige than one Senator of
> 100. People might even be able to remember who they are.
>
> Maybe it's time to jump to one Senator for every two states instead of the
> other way around. Not that it'll ever happen. It's just one item more
> for the little list.
Depends. Doing so would dilute the influence of the senate in the
electoral college.
Senators lost prestige when it became a position which one was elected
to by popular vote. Used to be that senators were appointed by the
Governor of a state, and thus did not have any reason to engage in the
sort of demagogue antics we've seen from many current and former
senators lately. They could remain dignified, while their popularly
elected counterparts in the House of Representatives practically
invented the arts of ambulance chasing, baby kissing, pork barrel graft,
etc. Because they were not elected, Senators retained essentially the
same dignity as someone like Alan Greenspan or an Ambassador. Respect is
not a result of rarity or ubiquity. Its easier to respect 100 honorable
men than 26 (or one) dishonorable ones.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:38 MDT