Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[NYcarbineer]

Can anyone here, without rambling on for a thousand words, explain to me why my losing my right to vote directly for the candidate of my choice for senator from my state is going to make my life better,

from the standpoint of my ability to participate in the democratic process that creates the government under which I'm obliged to live?

(I suggest clear concise numbered points)

First, voting for state representatives that in turn appoint federal Senators does not deter from your ability to participate in the democratic process. It enhances it.

To your points:

1) George Mason had a good point on the subject: “Let the state legislatures appoint the Senate,” Virginia’s George Mason urged at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, lest a newly empowered federal government “swallow up the state legislatures.” The motion carried unanimously after Mason’s remarks.

2) Selection by state legislatures was a key pillar of the Constitution’s architecture, ensuring that the Senate would be a bulwark for decentralized government. It’s inconceivable that a Senator during the pre-17th Amendment era would vote for an ‘unfunded federal mandate.’

3) There is no indication that the shift to direct election did anything to eliminate or even reduce corruption in Senate elections.

4) The increased power of special interests was the purpose of the 17th Amendment. It allowed them to lobby senators directly, cutting out the middleman of the state legislatures.

5) Ironically, that’s why corporations and urban political machines — Progressives’ supposed enemies — supported the amendment.

6) Together with the 16th Amendment establishing an income tax, the 17th Amendment helped transform the states into little more than administrative units for the federal behemoth. The feds have the gold, and they increasingly make the rules — in education, health care, and more.

Well, A for effort, but unfortunately not a single word of what you said addressed the point of my question...

...why would losing my right to vote directly for my Senators make my life better?

Let me put a finer point on it:

I live in one of the most Republican districts of New York State. Rarely if ever are Democrats EVER elected to the state legislature from here. That's the reality of the demographics. My county voted 6 to 1 AGAINST Hillary Clinton when she ran for Senate, even though she won handily.

Under the plan you like, I would NEVER have a vote AT ALL for NYS Senator. At all. Directly or indirectly. In fact, under the system you want, because my state reps will always be Republicans,

I would in effect be forced to indirectly vote for the Republican candidate for Senate,

every time! Because my Republican state representative would own my vote and cast it for the Republican every time (with the very rarest of exceptions, I guarantee you).

Now, again, how does that make my life better? How does a weird rigging of the system make things more democratic,

when a simple popular vote, most votes win system, which is as democratic as you can get,

is already in place?

 

[rightwinger]

It seems to me those who oppose repealing the 17th amendment, having grown up in a world where states rights have been completely emasculated, are unable to fathom the benefits of restoring a check on federal expansionism.

My state has representatives in both the House and Senate

Doesn't yours?

The senate used to represent the interests of the state legislatures, now it represents the popular vote. How hard is that for you to understand?

The interests of the State Legislatures?

Shouldn't they represent the interests of people?

 

[g5000]

Can anyone here, without rambling on for a thousand words, explain to me why my losing my right to vote directly for the candidate of my choice for senator from my state is going to make my life better,

from the standpoint of my ability to participate in the democratic process that creates the government under which I'm obliged to live?

(I suggest clear concise numbered points)

First, voting for state representatives that in turn appoint federal Senators does not deter from your ability to participate in the democratic process. It enhances it.

To your points:

1) George Mason had a good point on the subject: “Let the state legislatures appoint the Senate,” Virginia’s George Mason urged at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, lest a newly empowered federal government “swallow up the state legislatures.” The motion carried unanimously after Mason’s remarks.

2) Selection by state legislatures was a key pillar of the Constitution’s architecture, ensuring that the Senate would be a bulwark for decentralized government. It’s inconceivable that a Senator during the pre-17th Amendment era would vote for an ‘unfunded federal mandate.’

3) There is no indication that the shift to direct election did anything to eliminate or even reduce corruption in Senate elections.

4) The increased power of special interests was the purpose of the 17th Amendment. It allowed them to lobby senators directly, cutting out the middleman of the state legislatures.

5) Ironically, that’s why corporations and urban political machines — Progressives’ supposed enemies — supported the amendment.

6) Together with the 16th Amendment establishing an income tax, the 17th Amendment helped transform the states into little more than administrative units for the federal behemoth. The feds have the gold, and they increasingly make the rules — in education, health care, and more.

Well, A for effort, but unfortunately not a single word of what you said addressed the point of my question...

...why would losing my right to vote directly for my Senators make my life better?

Let me put a finer point on it:

I live in one of the most Republican districts of New York State. Rarely if ever are Democrats EVER elected to the state legislature from here. That's the reality of the demographics. My county voted 6 to 1 AGAINST Hillary Clinton when she ran for Senate, even though she won handily.

Under the plan you like, I would NEVER have a vote AT ALL for NYS Senator. At all. Directly or indirectly. In fact, under the system you want, because my state reps will always be Republicans,

I would in effect be forced to indirectly vote for the Republican candidate for Senate,

every time! Because my Republican state representative would own my vote and cast it for the Republican every time (with the very rarest of exceptions, I guarantee you).

Now, again, how does that make my life better? How does a weird rigging of the system make things more democratic,

when a simple popular vote, most votes win system, which is as democratic as you can get,

is already in place?

Which part of "a check on federal power" do you not understand? Do you not feel a check on federal power would be better for all of us?

 

[Synthaholic]

The first 3 words of the Constitution are we the people, not we the states.

The first words of the Constitution are Constitution of the United States, what you quoted are the first three words of the preamble.

LOLing@ the major biatchslapping old Carby has taken in this thread.. Pass the popcorn plz. ;-)

^^^^ Stupid has showed up.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It seems to me those who oppose repealing the 17th amendment, having grown up in a world where states rights have been completely emasculated, are unable to fathom the benefits of restoring a check on federal expansionism.

My state has representatives in both the House and Senate

Doesn't yours?

You seem to not understand the reasons for why Senators were appointed by legislatures.

It doesn't matter. The 17th amendment means the People and States decided otherwise.

Your state does not have as powerful a check on federal expansionism as we had in the past.

Perhaps we should return to the Articles of Confederation. After all, the Constitution represented a vast expansion of federal power relative to the ineffectual national government under the Articles. Since its always bad to expand federal power and always bad to change what those before us have set as law, we should return to the Articles, right?

 

[RKMBrown]

My state has representatives in both the House and Senate

Doesn't yours?

The senate used to represent the interests of the state legislatures, now it represents the popular vote. How hard is that for you to understand?

The interests of the State Legislatures?

Shouldn't they represent the interests of people?

No. The House represents the interests of the people. The Senate was supposed to represent the interests of the state legislatures.

The point of our system was to have checks and balances. Not turn it into a mob led majority free for all.

 

[RKMBrown]

It doesn't matter. The 17th amendment means the People and States decided otherwise.

So the topic is to repeal the 17th and your argument is we should not repeal the 17th because the 17th was approved in 1913.

What a brilliant repose.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It seems to me those who oppose repealing the 17th amendment, having grown up in a world where states rights have been completely emasculated, are unable to fathom the benefits of restoring a check on federal expansionism.

My state has representatives in both the House and Senate

Doesn't yours?

You seem to not understand the reasons for why Senators were appointed by legislatures. This was obviously a deliberate decision on the part of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution. Do you mean to say you never wondered why our Founders said we would directly elect the House but not the Senate? You never wondered why they purposely made the process different for the Senate? You never tried to understand the signficant difference that made?

Your state does not have as powerful a check on federal expansionism as we had in the past.

By claiming that the original system was more of a check on what you call 'federal expansionism'

aren't you admitting that the original system has a conservative bias? At least by the measure of 'states' rights' as conservatives like to tout?

 

[kwc57]

My state has representatives in both the House and Senate

Doesn't yours?

The senate used to represent the interests of the state legislatures, now it represents the popular vote. How hard is that for you to understand?

The interests of the State Legislatures?

Shouldn't they represent the interests of people?

Who elects the state legislature? The people. What does the state legislature do? Represent the interests of the people. See how that works?

 

[rightwinger]

Right now, Republicans hold the House of Representatives because they are able to gerrymander congressional districts to give them a majority of the seats even though they receive less votes

But how can you gerrymander the Senate if the states elect Senators through a direct vote?

I have an idea!

If we repeal the 17th amendment we can have State Legislatures appoint Senators and we CAN gerrymander State Legislatures

 

[RKMBrown]

My state has representatives in both the House and Senate

Doesn't yours?

You seem to not understand the reasons for why Senators were appointed by legislatures. This was obviously a deliberate decision on the part of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution. Do you mean to say you never wondered why our Founders said we would directly elect the House but not the Senate? You never wondered why they purposely made the process different for the Senate? You never tried to understand the signficant difference that made?

Your state does not have as powerful a check on federal expansionism as we had in the past.

By claiming that the original system was more of a check on what you call 'federal expansionism'

aren't you admitting that the original system has a conservative bias? At least by the measure of 'states' rights' as conservatives like to tout?

America was formed as a Republic of States, a federated union. If touting freedom and independence for the individual States to not be run roughshod by the states with higher population numbers is a conservative only premise.. then what the hell is the liberal alternative?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It doesn't matter. The 17th amendment means the People and States decided otherwise.

So the topic is to repeal the 17th and your argument is we should not repeal the 17th because the 17th was approved in 1913.

What a brilliant repose.

Its about as brilliant as your reasoning that we should go back to the way it was just because that was the way it was.

Look, sorry - you're not going to turn democracy around. What started as an oligarchy of white male property owners is no more. You're going to have to get used to it. Besides, most of the white males on this board probably wouldn't have owned enough property in 1789 to be allowed to vote.

 

[MisterBeale]

Ive been for restoring the Senate to the states for years as well. Because I agree with Madison's reasoning.

Will the GOP benefit from it? I have no idea. I don't care. I think repealing the 17th amendment is right no matter who contols the Senate. And I have problems with the GOP almost as often as I have problems with the Democrats lately.

Im also for an amendment prohibitting Gerrymandering. I think our legislative districts should not divide communities so a certain politician can keep a seat. Don't care whether it benefits the GOP or Dems.

Isn't it interesting though that people seem to think that following the methods the Constitution originally had benefit conservatives.

I've always been for an amendment that would have congressional districts in each state replaced by proportional representation. The majority of Americans do not know who their representative is anyhow.

This would truly give all Americans, of all political identities a voice at the table. Don't look to the two major parties to write such an Amendment or offer real solutions to the problems that are destroying this nation or expect it to ever be offered to the voter.

The democrats will tax to death the American citizens. The bulk of that revenue will go to pay the bill social liabilities that was locked in and promised on legislation they passed during the 40's and 60's. But it will also go toward the Republican war profiteers paying for military operations that have nothing to do with our "national security," and it will go toward paying interest on debt we borrow money from elite bankers loaning money to the whole system when in reality the government is given power to coin in the constitution in the first place so it shouldn't be necessary. It will also go toward continuing to bail out the "too big to fail banks" where this "fiat money" is originally injected, to play the financial derivatives markets, like some sort of casino, to give the appearance like the economy is still growing. This sector is run by the establishment, both democrats and republicans. One looks at the mainstream media, be it CNN or Fox, they will both tell you that the nation is humming along, "recovering," that there is no endemic problem, there is no cancerous rot.

But there is. If the ship isn't righted, and soon, there will be riots like there are in Egypt. Detroit won't be the only city going bankrupt. IF ONLY they can manage a slow decay for the rest of the country like they have in Michigan, you will all be very very lucky.

But that is what you will all get if you continue to vote, either Democrat, or Republican. In fact, that is what you will get if you continue to vote. Because, they control the voting booth. It doesn't matter WHO you vote for now, they just switch the votes. IT has been proven, many times now. They have changed Democrats elections, and they have changed Republican elections. As long as one of those two parties stay in power, at a certain time.

But you have to study advanced college statistics and exit polling to understand this. At this point, most Americans are too pie eyed and incredulous to ever believe it can happen here. But it does, and has been happening ever since Bush v. Gore

So at this point, what does voting matter? And the State politicians? Bought and paid for. But then, if we could move selection of Senators to the State level, then maybe getting money out of politics at the State level would be easier? Who knows.

Happened during the last Obama election. . .
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbf3iaEbAuY]Programmer Testifies About Rigging Elections With Vote Counting Machines - YouTube[/ame]

And the last re-election campaign.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pisBdNLmo-A]Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections (Full Length) - YouTube[/ame]

The fact of the matter is, no American president since Clinton has done a good enough job (in the eyes of the public) to legitimately DESERVE to get re-elected. But TPTB have their own plans. They never intended for Romney to be President anyhow. Why do you think he invested so much in Clear Channel? To make a mint when Obama was re-elected, that's why!

So, they have rigged the vote. Added to that, I know of at least TWO representative that have posed a threat to the establishment that the people have wanted to represent them that both the Republicans and Democrats have used dirty tricks and vote tampering defraud. THE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT. We live in a police state.

 

[g5000]

My state has representatives in both the House and Senate

Doesn't yours?

You seem to not understand the reasons for why Senators were appointed by legislatures. This was obviously a deliberate decision on the part of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution. Do you mean to say you never wondered why our Founders said we would directly elect the House but not the Senate? You never wondered why they purposely made the process different for the Senate? You never tried to understand the signficant difference that made?

Your state does not have as powerful a check on federal expansionism as we had in the past.

By claiming that the original system was more of a check on what you call 'federal expansionism'

aren't you admitting that the original system has a conservative bias? At least by the measure of 'states' rights' as conservatives like to tout?

If you are using the word "conservative" in the modern political sense, then we are in a gray area. The modern day conservative political beast is far from conservative. The modern day conservative craves federal power as much as the modern day liberal.

But if you mean it in the traditional sense, that is precisely what the Founders intended. To conserve, or limit, the power of the federal government and to preserve the power of the states.

The 17th amendment greatly reduced the power of the states to check federal powers. I believe this is now working to our detriment.

You should not assume that because I would like to see this check restored, I would like to see the days of Jim Crow (or whatever other past horrors you choose) to return. That is far from the truth.

In fact, I believe the states now suffer under a Jim Crow system. They have been disenfranchised; their powers greatly eroded.

I suggest reading as much modern day legislation as you can. Instead of reading some partisan site's interpretation of a law, read the actual law.

I think you will be astonished, once you start paying attention, at the number of federal preemptions there are in our laws today.

Even Republicans and alleged conservatives are doing it.

 

[rightwinger]

The senate used to represent the interests of the state legislatures, now it represents the popular vote. How hard is that for you to understand?

The interests of the State Legislatures?

Shouldn't they represent the interests of people?

Who elects the state legislature? The people. What does the state legislature do? Represent the interests of the people. See how that works?

Right now, my state has 80 Assemblymen and 40 State Senators

As a voter, I get to vote on one of each

If THEY select who my Senator and I do not like how that Senator performs, I can only take it out on my two representatives

If my Senator screws up.....I want to vote him out directly

 

[rightwinger]

You seem to not understand the reasons for why Senators were appointed by legislatures. This was obviously a deliberate decision on the part of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution. Do you mean to say you never wondered why our Founders said we would directly elect the House but not the Senate? You never wondered why they purposely made the process different for the Senate? You never tried to understand the signficant difference that made?

Your state does not have as powerful a check on federal expansionism as we had in the past.

By claiming that the original system was more of a check on what you call 'federal expansionism'

aren't you admitting that the original system has a conservative bias? At least by the measure of 'states' rights' as conservatives like to tout?

If you are using the word "conservative" in the modern political sense, then we are in a gray area. The modern day conservative political beast is far from conservative. The modern day conservative craves federal power as much as the modern day liberal.

But if you mean it in the traditional sense, that is precisely what the Founders intended. To conserve, or limit, the power of the federal government and to preserve the power of the states.

The 17th amendment greatly reduced the power of the states to check federal powers. I believe this is now working to our detriment.

You should not assume that because I would like to see this check restored, I would like to see the days of Jim Crow (or whatever other past horrors you choose) to return. That is far from the truth.

In fact, I believe the states now suffer under a Jim Crow system. They have been disenfranchised; their powers greatly eroded.

I suggest reading as much modern day legislation as you can. Instead of reading some partisan site's interpretation of a law, read the actual law.

I think you will be astonished, once you start paying attention, at the number of federal preemptions there are in our laws today.

Even Republicans and alleged conservatives are doing it.

Which should have a priority....

The agenda of my state legislature or the agenda of the people of my state?

 

[NYcarbineer]

First, voting for state representatives that in turn appoint federal Senators does not deter from your ability to participate in the democratic process. It enhances it.

To your points:

1) George Mason had a good point on the subject: “Let the state legislatures appoint the Senate,” Virginia’s George Mason urged at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, lest a newly empowered federal government “swallow up the state legislatures.” The motion carried unanimously after Mason’s remarks.

2) Selection by state legislatures was a key pillar of the Constitution’s architecture, ensuring that the Senate would be a bulwark for decentralized government. It’s inconceivable that a Senator during the pre-17th Amendment era would vote for an ‘unfunded federal mandate.’

3) There is no indication that the shift to direct election did anything to eliminate or even reduce corruption in Senate elections.

4) The increased power of special interests was the purpose of the 17th Amendment. It allowed them to lobby senators directly, cutting out the middleman of the state legislatures.

5) Ironically, that’s why corporations and urban political machines — Progressives’ supposed enemies — supported the amendment.

6) Together with the 16th Amendment establishing an income tax, the 17th Amendment helped transform the states into little more than administrative units for the federal behemoth. The feds have the gold, and they increasingly make the rules — in education, health care, and more.

Well, A for effort, but unfortunately not a single word of what you said addressed the point of my question...

...why would losing my right to vote directly for my Senators make my life better?

Let me put a finer point on it:

I live in one of the most Republican districts of New York State. Rarely if ever are Democrats EVER elected to the state legislature from here. That's the reality of the demographics. My county voted 6 to 1 AGAINST Hillary Clinton when she ran for Senate, even though she won handily.

Under the plan you like, I would NEVER have a vote AT ALL for NYS Senator. At all. Directly or indirectly. In fact, under the system you want, because my state reps will always be Republicans,

I would in effect be forced to indirectly vote for the Republican candidate for Senate,

every time! Because my Republican state representative would own my vote and cast it for the Republican every time (with the very rarest of exceptions, I guarantee you).

Now, again, how does that make my life better? How does a weird rigging of the system make things more democratic,

when a simple popular vote, most votes win system, which is as democratic as you can get,

is already in place?

Which part of "a check on federal power" do you not understand? Do you not feel a check on federal power would be better for all of us?

What part of why should I lose my right to vote for Senators don't YOU understand?

 

[g5000]

Well, A for effort, but unfortunately not a single word of what you said addressed the point of my question...

...why would losing my right to vote directly for my Senators make my life better?

Let me put a finer point on it:

I live in one of the most Republican districts of New York State. Rarely if ever are Democrats EVER elected to the state legislature from here. That's the reality of the demographics. My county voted 6 to 1 AGAINST Hillary Clinton when she ran for Senate, even though she won handily.

Under the plan you like, I would NEVER have a vote AT ALL for NYS Senator. At all. Directly or indirectly. In fact, under the system you want, because my state reps will always be Republicans,

I would in effect be forced to indirectly vote for the Republican candidate for Senate,

every time! Because my Republican state representative would own my vote and cast it for the Republican every time (with the very rarest of exceptions, I guarantee you).

Now, again, how does that make my life better? How does a weird rigging of the system make things more democratic,

when a simple popular vote, most votes win system, which is as democratic as you can get,

is already in place?

Which part of "a check on federal power" do you not understand? Do you not feel a check on federal power would be better for all of us?

What part of why should I lose my right to vote for Senators don't YOU understand?

I have explained why. Over and over and over.

To. Restore. The. Check. On. Federal. Power.

The mob is not a check on federal power. The mob is always demanding, "What is the government going to do about this?" "Gimme, gimme, gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it." "Let my bank gamble with other people's money, and don't let the states stop me."

 

[RKMBrown]

Right now, Republicans hold the House of Representatives because they are able to gerrymander congressional districts to give them a majority of the seats even though they receive less votes

But how can you gerrymander the Senate if the states elect Senators through a direct vote?

I have an idea!

If we repeal the 17th amendment we can have State Legislatures appoint Senators and we CAN gerrymander State Legislatures

What makes you think only republicans gerrymander congressional districts?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You seem to not understand the reasons for why Senators were appointed by legislatures. This was obviously a deliberate decision on the part of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution. Do you mean to say you never wondered why our Founders said we would directly elect the House but not the Senate? You never wondered why they purposely made the process different for the Senate? You never tried to understand the signficant difference that made?

Your state does not have as powerful a check on federal expansionism as we had in the past.

By claiming that the original system was more of a check on what you call 'federal expansionism'

aren't you admitting that the original system has a conservative bias? At least by the measure of 'states' rights' as conservatives like to tout?

If you are using the word "conservative" in the modern political sense, then we are in a gray area. The modern day conservative political beast is far from conservative. The modern day conservative craves federal power as much as the modern day liberal.

But if you mean it in the traditional sense, that is precisely what the Founders intended. To conserve, or limit, the power of the federal government and to preserve the power of the states.

.

Do you know that Jefferson mocked the idea of future generations binding themselves religiously to ideas like 'what the founders intended'?