Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[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?

Everything you bitch about is true in the reverse...but we understand it's all about you.

Further, your state, if what you said is true, would still vote in Democrat Senators...yet you still bitch because only your vote matters. Good gawd you're self centered.

Your hypocrisy in supporting a system that caters to lobbyists and the big businesses that fund them, while bitching about those same entities, is clear for all to see. Good luck with that.

See the above? This is what conservatism is all about...attacking someone for wanting their right to vote,

and the right to have their vote count for something.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of course it's just another conservative how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-conservatives scam.

What do you think of the rage against providing a photo I.D. to vote from the left?

What was the opinion of the founding fathers on photo ID?

 

[PrometheusBound]

I agree. Its a conservative plot to pack the senate w/ conservatives because there would be fewer people to bribe and it would therefore be cheaper for the money men who currently own Washington to buy elections

how is moving away from an electoral process that more easily facilitated bribes= "moving away from the Constitution"? They were basically being "appointed" just like Bush II was appointed. Don't like it.

He was appointed by his brother; that's different. Don't you believe in family values?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Of course it's just another conservative how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-conservatives scam.

What do you think of the rage against providing a photo I.D. to vote from the left?

What was the opinion of the founding fathers on photo ID?

in 1789 Only 6% of the population can vote

 

[kwc57]

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?

Everything you bitch about is true in the reverse...but we understand it's all about you.

Further, your state, if what you said is true, would still vote in Democrat Senators...yet you still bitch because only your vote matters. Good gawd you're self centered.

Your hypocrisy in supporting a system that caters to lobbyists and the big businesses that fund them, while bitching about those same entities, is clear for all to see. Good luck with that.

See the above? This is what conservatism is all about...attacking someone for wanting their right to vote,

and the right to have their vote count for something.

Look, they finally purged the board of TM. We really don't need a replacement. Quit lying.

 

[kwc57]

how is moving away from an electoral process that more easily facilitated bribes= "moving away from the Constitution"? They were basically being "appointed" just like Bush II was appointed. Don't like it.

He was appointed by his brother; that's different. Don't you believe in family values?

 

[kwc57]

Of course it's just another conservative how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-conservatives scam.

What do you think of the rage against providing a photo I.D. to vote from the left?

What was the opinion of the founding fathers on photo ID?

Voter eligibilty is the responsibility of the state. They decide. But you've been taught that here repeatedly. We can't help it if the "lernin' don't take".

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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?

Everything you bitch about is true in the reverse...but we understand it's all about you.

Further, your state, if what you said is true, would still vote in Democrat Senators...yet you still bitch because only your vote matters. Good gawd you're self centered.

Your hypocrisy in supporting a system that caters to lobbyists and the big businesses that fund them, while bitching about those same entities, is clear for all to see. Good luck with that.

See the above? This is what conservatism is all about...attacking someone for wanting their right to vote,

and the right to have their vote count for something.

Really? How so?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What do you think of the rage against providing a photo I.D. to vote from the left?

What was the opinion of the founding fathers on photo ID?

Voter eligibilty is the responsibility of the state. They decide. But you've been taught that here repeatedly. We can't help it if the "lernin' don't take".

True, provided the states enact laws in accordance with Constitutional jurisprudence. When they fail to do so and enact measures offensive to the Constitution, such laws are invalidated.

 

[rightwinger]

Federalist 62 says this about it:

"...on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion."

Ok, so it was supported back then because of public opinion? Fair enough.

Where's the current 'public opinion' for changing it NOW??

I am not so sure about public opinion

The whole idea of letting regular people vote back then was pretty radical. They even restricted the right for white, male landowners who they thought they could trust. Having the state legislatures select Senators was kind of a safeguard against civilian voters

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In keeping with the idea I proposed in a topic about Mark Levin's proposed constitutional amendmeent that each is worthy of a topic alone, I decided to start with one that I believe will be the least emotionally-laden.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Levin proposes returning the election of US Senators to the way the process worked at the beginning of our republic. Back then, US Senators were elected by their respective state legislatures instead of by the people.

James Madison made the following argument...

James Madison made many arguments and also governed in ways that had his critics of his day commenting upon his hypocrisy. James Madison also lived in an agriculturally stagnant south when America was compared to the standards of today, a very small nation, area wise and in population.

Make an argument with references to present day realities and you'll have a good argument, maybe.

The Senate makes it's own rules. The House Congressional seats are reapportioned according to party safety. The Senate seats are still state wide. We get the government we deserve as it is the one we vote for. Reforming the Senate back to the future would most probably result in more problems than ones it would solve.

 

[g5000]

In keeping with the idea I proposed in a topic about Mark Levin's proposed constitutional amendmeent that each is worthy of a topic alone, I decided to start with one that I believe will be the least emotionally-laden.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Levin proposes returning the election of US Senators to the way the process worked at the beginning of our republic. Back then, US Senators were elected by their respective state legislatures instead of by the people.

James Madison made the following argument...

James Madison made many arguments and also governed in ways that had his critics of his day commenting upon his hypocrisy. James Madison also lived in an agriculturally stagnant south when America was compared to the standards of today, a very small nation, area wise and in population.

Make an argument with references to present day realities and you'll have a good argument, maybe.

Madison's argument for Senators selected by state legislators is still valid today, your ad hominem attempted diversions notwithstanding.

The Senate makes it's own rules. The House Congressional seats are reapportioned according to party safety. The Senate seats are still state wide. We get the government we deserve as it is the one we vote for. Reforming the Senate back to the future would most probably result in more problems than ones it would solve.

The 17th amendment created more problems than it solved.

I heartily agree with the sentiment that we get the government we deserve. Apparently we deserve an overbearing, grossly intrusive nanny with authoritarian aspirations.

 

[rightwinger]

Repeal of the 17th amendment allows Republicans to get Senate seats without having to deal with the pesky voters

Other than that, make voting more difficult. Cut down on polling places and hours. Make people stand on line. Demand increasingly difficult ID.

The Electoral College is now unwinable for a GOP candidate. Get Republican controlled blue states to split their electoral votes while red states remain all or nothing

Gerrymander, gerrymander, gerrymander to make sure Republicans control the House even though they get fewer votes

This is the political future of the GOP

 

[Synthaholic]

Of course it's just another conservative how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-conservatives scam.

What do you think of the rage against providing a photo I.D. to vote from the left?

I.D. isn't the issue.


Tell me why an I.D. is no good from a State school, like North Carolina State, which is State accredited, and the official State school of the State of North Carolina.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The law of unintended consequences aside, the 17th addressed an issue of the day. Conservatives and others always want to go back to the future. It is what happens when there is a vacuum of leadership and an empty chasm of ideas.

Madison's arguments addressed a reality that existed in a different time politically, economically, socially...you name it.

Thomas Jefferson imagined a past that never existed and he is still quoted as an authority for ideas too. Americans are amusing

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Repeal of the 17th amendment allows Republicans to get Senate seats without having to deal with the pesky voters

Other than that, make voting more difficult. Cut down on polling places and hours. Make people stand on line. Demand increasingly difficult ID.

The Electoral College is now unwinable for a GOP candidate. Get Republican controlled blue states to split their electoral votes while red states remain all or nothing

Gerrymander, gerrymander, gerrymander to make sure Republicans control the House even though they get fewer votes

This is the political future of the GOP

Republicans are always seeking ways to not deal with pesky voters.

 

[rightwinger]

Repeal of the 17th amendment allows Republicans to get Senate seats without having to deal with the pesky voters

Other than that, make voting more difficult. Cut down on polling places and hours. Make people stand on line. Demand increasingly difficult ID.

The Electoral College is now unwinable for a GOP candidate. Get Republican controlled blue states to split their electoral votes while red states remain all or nothing

Gerrymander, gerrymander, gerrymander to make sure Republicans control the House even though they get fewer votes

This is the political future of the GOP

Republicans are always seeking ways to not deal with pesky voters.

Republicans have realized that their agenda no longer appeals to current voter demographics. Now, the logical solution would be to change your agenda. But the Republican solution is to keep your agenda and change the rules to allow you to either rule from a minority position or at least block the other guys agenda

 

[Contumacious]

I agree with your assessment. The GOP as it exists today cannot win on ideas alone, they must figure out ways to thwart the election process.

BOTH parties thwart the election process.

A WELFARE STATE = GOVERNMENT BUY THE PEOPLE.

.

 

[Contumacious]

Republicans have realized that their agenda no longer appeals to current voter demographics. Now, the logical solution would be to change your agenda. But the Republican solution is to keep your agenda and change the rules to allow you to either rule from a minority position or at least block the other guys agenda

Any party who does cater to the PARASITIC FACTION , which constitutes close to 50% of the electorate, will not "appeal to the current voter demographics"

.

 

[Trajan]

Of course it's just another conservative how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-conservatives scam.

What do you think of the rage against providing a photo I.D. to vote from the left?

What was the opinion of the founding fathers on photo ID?

so now you're worried about what the founding fathers think? aside from being an idiotic post getdafugouttahere...