Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[The2ndAmendment]

I would like to expound a little more on the negative consequences of a Senator having to campaign in a direct election.

To get elected, a candidate has to raise a lot of money. This means asking special interests for a lot of money.

We spoke of a few varieties of corruption so far. Gerrymandering, state legislators bought by special interests.

A US Senator isn't bought by special interests? Since federal power has expanded considerably, I would say federal officials are even more prone to being owned.

You have all heard me say we need to ban all tax expenditures. Special interests would lose one chief motive for donating to incumbent Congressmen if those lawmakers were unable to give tax breaks to their "friends".

Well, another big corrupting influence is cash in exchange for regulatory favors.

If a Senator has no need to campaign, he has no need for campaign cash, and therefore he won't feel pressure to dispense regulatory favors in exchange for campaign cash.

Not having to campaign would be a check on the lower House which is even more susceptible to these corrupting influences.

Also, to compound this, it also reduces much of the pressure on the popularly elected House of Reps, because the special interests won't invest as much money into the House of Reps, if they know they'll often be cockblocked by the Senate.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I've been for repealing the 17th for years.

A very unpopular position.

Please articulate your reasons.

It started by in High School, in the lat 70's. No later than 1978.

While my father was very well versed in American History, he had his degree in it, and we discussed American history nearly every evening, he was not very political. A Union Democrat would be the best way to describe him. Though he lost confidence in the Democratic Party when Carter was elected, he didn't like Carter from the git-go.

Anyway, my American Government teacher in High School was a Naturalized Italian who came to the U.S. when she was in her mid 20s. She knew the operation of the Federal Government inside and out.

It was from her that we learned of the 17th Amendment and what it meant and what it changed.

I discussed the topic with my father and we spent weeks going over it. He made me research the topic and give him reports on it.

It was at this time I first wondered why the State Governments would be willing to give up their Representation at the Federal Level. The Congress has two houses, the House of Representatives, otherwise known as "The People's House" which is supposed to be directly responsive to the people of each State. That is why they are supposed to represent approximitely the same number of people. So that every person has nearly the same Representation in Washington D. C. That is why States will gain or lose seats in the House.

Then there is the Senate. Two people from each State. They are supposed to be there to represent the interests of the State. What is best for States of Ohio, Florida, Main, New York, California, etc. These interests do not always align with the wishes of the people as individuals. Especially people who are very vocal and garner large microphones.

It is my opinion that most of those who pushed the 17th through were lead by the "progressives" of the era. Sociialists in all but name to be honest. Populists may be a better term. It's really 6 of one, a half dozen of another.

Either way, it has led to the downfall of the States having any voice in Washington, a voice which is desperately needed as the Federal Government has pushed more and more Unfunded mandates down to the States.. Mandates that may not have succeeded if the Senators were actually there to represent the States.

 

[francoHFW]

Also, here's a good question to throw at a Commie on the subject:

"If the people get it wrong in the House of Representatives, what makes you think they would also not get it wrong when they elected the Senate? What is the point of two houses of Popular Representation?"

Obviously if one house fails, the other house, chosen by the same entity, will also fail.

The Communist can never answer this question, because in order to answer it, they must first admit that the People can act as a Tyranny of the Majority, which is supposed to be impossible according to Commie ideology.

Choke on that Commies.

Jeebus you're a brainwashed fool. This house is a gerrymandered mess. The "no compromise, un-American Tea Pary GOP (TIME)" fixed it so they have more reps even though they lost the popular vote, and have ruined everything since. A disgrace.

Stupid fascist, no commies here. Keep fighting for the greedy idiot rich and ditto corporations. Just how the nonrich and the country have been ruined the last 30 years. See sig.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I have two questions.

1) Why should we go back to a system that the people who were experienced with obviously thought wasn't working? History clearly indicates that, even states without any allegations of corruption and toadyism, thought direct election of Senators was beneficial. Quite a few states had move to that system even without the amendment pushing other states to adopt it, and it was ratified in less than a year, which is pretty remarkable in and of itself.

B) What evidence does anyone have that the 17th Amendment is responsible for the reprehensible expansion of power of the federal government? I mean, seriously, other than wanting to go back to something that clearly was highly unpopular, how do we know it would make a difference? What if it makes things worse?

Personally, I see no real argument in favor of repealing it that doesn't appeal to emotions instead of logic. N one has any evidence that direct election of Senators actually results in a loss of state power, yet they insist it somehow does. Until people can point out specifically why we should do this it looks like a step back to me.

C) It would make more sense to repeal the 13th Amendment, since that is the one that actually gave the federal government authority to trample state laws. It is also directly responsible for the cases which you site as a reason to overturn the 17th Amendment. It is federal law, based on the 13th Amendment, that mandates voting districts that account for race. Since the 13th predates the 17th, why blame the 17th for what the13th enabled?

1a) Read the debates and controversies over the Amendment. The Progressive Era sent waves of hysteria and Populist chest beating over an issue that was truly a non-issue; much like gun control today.

1b) The 17th Amendment was hatched at Jekyell Island, by the same banking cabals that created the 16th Amendment (IRS) and the Federal Reserve. The 16th, 17th and Federal Reserve were enacted at the same time.

1c) Neither the 16th nor the 17th Amendment were ratified by 3/4 of the State Legislatures. It was forgery and fraud.

2a) The Federal Reserve would never have survived being re-chartered if the 17th Amendment was never passed, as local businesses and local/state economic factions would have had considerable power over their State legislatures, and would demand that they put an end to the rampant inflation and Great Depressions. This is what caused the First and Second banks of the United States to fail to be re-chartered.

Therefore the mega-international-bankers, like Rothschild, learned from the past, so they wouldn't be doomed to repeat it, and abolished the Senate, so it could never overthrow their banking tyranny ever again. The People, as a whole, would be too ignorant of economics to understand that inflation was caused by the IRS and the Federal Reserve; whereas the local and state business communities would be ever too wise, and would exercise too much control of the State Legislature. Yes, the Senate was actually designed to be a "Dirty" election by the local/state business tycoons, because Popular election of Senators would only make it a "Super Dirty" election by national and international business tycoons --- the lesser evil --- and one that actually spurred economic growth for their own People.

You really don't think the banking dynasties didn't attempt to rectify their mistakes in the past with the First and Second Banks of the United States?

2b) Unfunded mandates wouldn't exist if the 17th Amendment were never passed. This evil practice was also intended by the Progressives, so they could shift the responsibility of paying of their shit to other entities, because history always showed that their ideas always went bankrupt. Now they could shift this bankruptcy to someone else, and then blame that someone else, keeping themselves above the fray.

2c) It was the only "legal" means for the States to resist federal tyranny. Now all we have left is 10th Amendment Nullification, which will ultimately lead to Civil War, as it has done once already. Nullification precedes violence, where the State government is DEFENDING itself from a tyrannical Federal Government. Sometimes that Federal Government gets really pissed, and sends in troops to COERCE that State into submitting to unconstitutional law.

Look at California marijuana nullification. They openly defied and ignored the SCOTUS decision saying their nullification of marijuana law was illegal, then swarms of federal officers flooded California. The only response that California has is resorting to their Second Amendment remedy, and shooting the federal agents; whereas, if it wasn't for the 17th Amendment, since many other States have also nullified federal marijuana laws, even after the SCOTUS decision, the State Legislatures themselves would have chosen different Senators, and respecting each other's differences, and repealed the laws at the federal level.

Many of the pre-1913 arguments AGAINST nullification were somewhat valid, because of how the Senate worked; however, all those arguments being totally invalid once the 17th Amendment is passed, because now the Senate no longer functions as a State check on tyranny, and 10th Amendment nullification becomes the ONLY legal remedy. So if Nullification was illegal pre-1913, it was MADE legal, by default, in 1913 by the 17th Amendment, because it was the only peaceful option that remained for the States to assert their sovereignty guaranteed by the 17th Amendment.

C) WTF????? It believe you mean the 14th Amendment, not the 13th. The 13th bans slavery.

 

[rightwinger]

I've been for repealing the 17th for years.

A very unpopular position.

Please articulate your reasons.

It started by in High School, in the lat 70's. No later than 1978.

While my father was very well versed in American History, he had his degree in it, and we discussed American history nearly every evening, he was not very political. A Union Democrat would be the best way to describe him. Though he lost confidence in the Democratic Party when Carter was elected, he didn't like Carter from the git-go.

Anyway, my American Government teacher in High School was a Naturalized Italian who came to the U.S. when she was in her mid 20s. She knew the operation of the Federal Government inside and out.

It was from her that we learned of the 17th Amendment and what it meant and what it changed.

I discussed the topic with my father and we spent weeks going over it. He made me research the topic and give him reports on it.

It was at this time I first wondered why the State Governments would be willing to give up their Representation at the Federal Level. The Congress has two houses, the House of Representatives, otherwise known as "The People's House" which is supposed to be directly responsive to the people of each State. That is why they are supposed to represent approximitely the same number of people. So that every person has nearly the same Representation in Washington D. C. That is why States will gain or lose seats in the House.

Then there is the Senate. Two people from each State. They are supposed to be there to represent the interests of the State. What is best for States of Ohio, Florida, Main, New York, California, etc. These interests do not always align with the wishes of the people as individuals. Especially people who are very vocal and garner large microphones.

It is my opinion that most of those who pushed the 17th through were lead by the "progressives" of the era. Sociialists in all but name to be honest. Populists may be a better term. It's really 6 of one, a half dozen of another.

Either way, it has led to the downfall of the States having any voice in Washington, a voice which is desperately needed as the Federal Government has pushed more and more Unfunded mandates down to the States.. Mandates that may not have succeeded if the Senators were actually there to represent the States.

The States ARE the people. They are not a separate entity from the people of that state.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Please articulate your reasons.

It started by in High School, in the lat 70's. No later than 1978.

While my father was very well versed in American History, he had his degree in it, and we discussed American history nearly every evening, he was not very political. A Union Democrat would be the best way to describe him. Though he lost confidence in the Democratic Party when Carter was elected, he didn't like Carter from the git-go.

Anyway, my American Government teacher in High School was a Naturalized Italian who came to the U.S. when she was in her mid 20s. She knew the operation of the Federal Government inside and out.

It was from her that we learned of the 17th Amendment and what it meant and what it changed.

I discussed the topic with my father and we spent weeks going over it. He made me research the topic and give him reports on it.

It was at this time I first wondered why the State Governments would be willing to give up their Representation at the Federal Level. The Congress has two houses, the House of Representatives, otherwise known as "The People's House" which is supposed to be directly responsive to the people of each State. That is why they are supposed to represent approximitely the same number of people. So that every person has nearly the same Representation in Washington D. C. That is why States will gain or lose seats in the House.

Then there is the Senate. Two people from each State. They are supposed to be there to represent the interests of the State. What is best for States of Ohio, Florida, Main, New York, California, etc. These interests do not always align with the wishes of the people as individuals. Especially people who are very vocal and garner large microphones.

It is my opinion that most of those who pushed the 17th through were lead by the "progressives" of the era. Sociialists in all but name to be honest. Populists may be a better term. It's really 6 of one, a half dozen of another.

Either way, it has led to the downfall of the States having any voice in Washington, a voice which is desperately needed as the Federal Government has pushed more and more Unfunded mandates down to the States.. Mandates that may not have succeeded if the Senators were actually there to represent the States.

The States ARE the people. They are not a separate entity from the people of that state.

That is where you are wrong and the Founders would strongly disagree with you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The States ARE the people. They are not a separate entity from the people of that state.

Just as state property is the peoples property - still, I will be shot if I walk on state land, Comrade.

What you pose, is Marxist bullshit. At best, government represents people - at worst - as you advocate - it rules over people. In no case, is government and the people one and the same.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That is where you are wrong and the Founders would strongly disagree with you.

He is quoting Marx, whom he strongly prefers over Madison, Mason, or Jefferson....

 

[OriginalShroom]

That is where you are wrong and the Founders would strongly disagree with you.

He is quoting Marx, whom he strongly prefers over Madison, Mason, or Jefferson....

No doubt.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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 for electing by state legislatures in Federalist Paper No. 62:

It is equally unnecessary to dilate 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. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

In other words, Madison was saying this method reinforced the authority of the states over the federal government.

So why did our country feel it necessary to change that?

First, it was widely believed that state legislators were easily bought. There were several cases of such corruption which fed into this belief. And one only has to pick up a local newspaper to see this is still true today.

Second, just ponder how often the US Senate is deadlocked today by partisans. The same was true of state legislatures.

Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked, in 20 different states; in one extreme example, a Senate seat for Delaware went unfilled from 1899 until 1903. The business of holding elections also caused great disruption in the state legislatures, with a full third of the Oregon House of Representatives choosing not to swear the oath of office in 1897 due to a dispute over an open Senate seat. The result was that the legislature was unable to pass legislation that year.

By the time the 17th amendment was a viable proposal, 33 states had already changed their election laws so that their Senators were chosen by popular vote. 31 state legislatures had passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional amendment allowing popular vote, and ten Republicans who opposed an amendment lost their seats. 27 states were calling for a constitutional convention, with 31 being the threshold.


But there is yet more to this than meets the eye. Much more.

You see, in the past voter district lines were based on geography, not population. Voting districts were given equal geographic size, the result of which was rural votes were seriously overweighted. There might be 20 times as many people in an urban voting district, but they were given one representative in the state legislature, and the rural district was also given one representative in the state legislature even though it had much fewer people in it.

In such a scheme, one can see how the votes of rural voters, who tend to be conservatives, greatly outweigh the votes of urban voters (who tend to be liberal).

Three Supreme Court decisions changed all that. These are known as the "one man, one vote" decisions. District lines are now based on population.


But...US Senate districts (the states) are still based on geography. And there are still more rural states than heavily urbanized states.

You can see where this is going.

This means, on the Senate district level, rural states' votes continue to be more heavily weighted than urbanized states with the result that 27 state legislatures are Republican controlled, while only 17 state legislatures are Democratic controlled. The rest are split.

Consequently, the immediate result of repealing the 17th amendment would result in 54 GOP Senators, 34 Democratic Senators, with the rest being a tossup. The Republicans would gain a majority in the Senate.

I believe that is the real purpose of the drive to repeal the 17th amendment, with the restoring-states-authority-over-the-federal-government argument just the thinnest of smokescreens.


Have at it.

currently there is no need for the senate

we already have the "peoples house"

if only one of Marks amendments came to fruition

it should be the repeal of the 17th

it give the states a say in the happenings

that affect the state

 

[rightwinger]

It started by in High School, in the lat 70's. No later than 1978.

While my father was very well versed in American History, he had his degree in it, and we discussed American history nearly every evening, he was not very political. A Union Democrat would be the best way to describe him. Though he lost confidence in the Democratic Party when Carter was elected, he didn't like Carter from the git-go.

Anyway, my American Government teacher in High School was a Naturalized Italian who came to the U.S. when she was in her mid 20s. She knew the operation of the Federal Government inside and out.

It was from her that we learned of the 17th Amendment and what it meant and what it changed.

I discussed the topic with my father and we spent weeks going over it. He made me research the topic and give him reports on it.

It was at this time I first wondered why the State Governments would be willing to give up their Representation at the Federal Level. The Congress has two houses, the House of Representatives, otherwise known as "The People's House" which is supposed to be directly responsive to the people of each State. That is why they are supposed to represent approximitely the same number of people. So that every person has nearly the same Representation in Washington D. C. That is why States will gain or lose seats in the House.

Then there is the Senate. Two people from each State. They are supposed to be there to represent the interests of the State. What is best for States of Ohio, Florida, Main, New York, California, etc. These interests do not always align with the wishes of the people as individuals. Especially people who are very vocal and garner large microphones.

It is my opinion that most of those who pushed the 17th through were lead by the "progressives" of the era. Sociialists in all but name to be honest. Populists may be a better term. It's really 6 of one, a half dozen of another.

Either way, it has led to the downfall of the States having any voice in Washington, a voice which is desperately needed as the Federal Government has pushed more and more Unfunded mandates down to the States.. Mandates that may not have succeeded if the Senators were actually there to represent the States.

The States ARE the people. They are not a separate entity from the people of that state.

That is where you are wrong and the Founders would strongly disagree with you.

The Founding Fathers were in unchartered territory and they got it wrong on electing Senators as well as only allowing white, male, landowners to vote

But We the People fixed it for them

 

[NYcarbineer]

Geez, why not have the Governor just pick the Senators, the House reps, and cast one vote for President on behalf of the state?

Why would we want to go to such an extreme?

It's just an expansion of the idea that conservatives have, that for some reason, direct elections are evil.

 

[Papageorgio]

I would like to change it back to the states deciding their Senators. The reason, so less influence by corporate money. Also it would hopefully get rid of 30year Senators.

Are you serious? It's a lot easier to buy off a few politicians in a state legislature than a few million voters in a state.

All they currently buy off are Senators, they fund their re-election, then lobby them. More expensive to buy a state off than two Senators. Look how easy it was for insurance to make big bucks under Obamacare.

 

[rightwinger]

The States ARE the people. They are not a separate entity from the people of that state.

Just as state property is the peoples property - still, I will be shot if I walk on state land, Comrade.

What you pose, is Marxist bullshit. At best, government represents people - at worst - as you advocate - it rules over people. In no case, is government and the people one and the same.

We the people directly voting for our representatives is now Marxist?

You are crazier than I had thought

 

[Trajan]

This means, on the Senate district level, rural states' votes continue to be more heavily weighted than urbanized states with the result that 27 state legislatures are Republican controlled, while only 17 state legislatures are Democratic controlled. The rest are split.

Consequently, the immediate result of repealing the 17th amendment would result in 54 GOP Senators, 34 Democratic Senators, with the rest being a tossup. The Republicans would gain a majority in the Senate.

Which would be far more representative of where America actually is politically. How many Republican governors are there? How many State Houses are Republican led? How many Republicans are there in the US House compared to Democrats? The urban areas are the tail wagging the dog.

I do not disagree. Speaking of the tail wagging the dog, though, I do not buy the motives of the leadership behind this drive to be honorable. Were the shoe on the other foot, I am sure they would be singing a different tune. For them, this is about power, not principle.

sure, and the exact same argument could be made when they changed it but alas......

I think I understand why the Founding fathers crafted the senatorial ‘appointments ‘so ( that’s pretty much what they were via state leg.) as a balance to the house, as they were the directly elected representatives. But I think, they were wrong in the long run, politicians and, most importantly the $$ have evolved waaaaaaaaay past those days. ( heck they changed the way the VP was ‘elected’ shortly there after too).

And I understand why they deconstructed it, making them directly elected, unable to ( unlike the house via gerrymandering) to choose their own voters in their own way amongst the state legislators.

It is also no accident that the 16th amend. ( allowing congress to levy an income tax) was ratified shorty before the 17th which followed on the heels of the 16th by a scant 3 months. Think on that

In any event to go back now would not be wise, think about the EU, parliamentary ‘agency’ like organs, disconnected/insulated from the electorate. Not for me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Geez, why not have the Governor just pick the Senators, the House reps, and cast one vote for President on behalf of the state?

1) Because the People of each State choose how their State Legislature is elected, which may vary from State to State, and does.

2) The House of Reps is meant to be the popular check of the Federal Government.

3) This was discussed for months at the Constitutional Convention and for any more months during the ratification debates and other publications (Federalist Papers). Maybe you should learn about the Constitution before you comment on it --- oh wait, you're a Libtard.

Senators are supposed to represent their state. In order to be representative of the state, they need to be elected by the people of the state,

not appointed by the legislature.

I ask again:

why would it have been better if Scott Brown had not been able to be Senator from Massachusetts?

No one can answer that question, therefore no one has a single good reason why this cockeyed system ought to be resurrected.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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 for electing by state legislatures in Federalist Paper No. 62:

It is equally unnecessary to dilate 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. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

In other words, Madison was saying this method reinforced the authority of the states over the federal government.

So why did our country feel it necessary to change that?

First, it was widely believed that state legislators were easily bought. There were several cases of such corruption which fed into this belief. And one only has to pick up a local newspaper to see this is still true today.

Second, just ponder how often the US Senate is deadlocked today by partisans. The same was true of state legislatures.

Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked, in 20 different states; in one extreme example, a Senate seat for Delaware went unfilled from 1899 until 1903. The business of holding elections also caused great disruption in the state legislatures, with a full third of the Oregon House of Representatives choosing not to swear the oath of office in 1897 due to a dispute over an open Senate seat. The result was that the legislature was unable to pass legislation that year.

By the time the 17th amendment was a viable proposal, 33 states had already changed their election laws so that their Senators were chosen by popular vote. 31 state legislatures had passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional amendment allowing popular vote, and ten Republicans who opposed an amendment lost their seats. 27 states were calling for a constitutional convention, with 31 being the threshold.


But there is yet more to this than meets the eye. Much more.

You see, in the past voter district lines were based on geography, not population. Voting districts were given equal geographic size, the result of which was rural votes were seriously overweighted. There might be 20 times as many people in an urban voting district, but they were given one representative in the state legislature, and the rural district was also given one representative in the state legislature even though it had much fewer people in it.

In such a scheme, one can see how the votes of rural voters, who tend to be conservatives, greatly outweigh the votes of urban voters (who tend to be liberal).

Three Supreme Court decisions changed all that. These are known as the "one man, one vote" decisions. District lines are now based on population.


But...US Senate districts (the states) are still based on geography. And there are still more rural states than heavily urbanized states.

You can see where this is going.

This means, on the Senate district level, rural states' votes continue to be more heavily weighted than urbanized states with the result that 27 state legislatures are Republican controlled, while only 17 state legislatures are Democratic controlled. The rest are split.

Consequently, the immediate result of repealing the 17th amendment would result in 54 GOP Senators, 34 Democratic Senators, with the rest being a tossup. The Republicans would gain a majority in the Senate.

I believe that is the real purpose of the drive to repeal the 17th amendment, with the restoring-states-authority-over-the-federal-government argument just the thinnest of smokescreens.


Have at it.

Correct, the perception of republicans that they’ll likely continue to control the majority of state houses and consequently gain and keep control the US Senate.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Also, here's a good question to throw at a Commie on the subject:

"If the people get it wrong in the House of Representatives, what makes you think they would also not get it wrong when they elected the Senate? What is the point of two houses of Popular Representation?"

Obviously if one house fails, the other house, chosen by the same entity, will also fail.

The Communist can never answer this question, because in order to answer it, they must first admit that the People can act as a Tyranny of the Majority, which is supposed to be impossible according to Commie ideology.

Choke on that Commies.

Jeebus you're a brainwashed fool. This house is a gerrymandered mess. The "no compromise, un-American Tea Pary GOP (TIME)" fixed it so they have more reps even though they lost the popular vote, and have ruined everything since. A disgrace.

Stupid fascist, no commies here. Keep fighting for the greedy idiot rich and ditto corporations. Just how the nonrich and the country have been ruined the last 30 years. See sig.

You didn't even respond to the question.

Yes, the house is a gerrymandered mess, but that has nothing to do with my question.
------------------
But in regards to the Gerrymandering, it was done by the Commies and Fascists alike. They capped the number of Representatives, so instead of having 1 Rep for 30,000 people, now you have 1 Rep per 700,000. If they uncapped the House and returned to 1 Rep for every 30,000, we would have about 9000 Representatives. Try Gerrymandering that.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I believe that is the real purpose of the drive to repeal the 17th amendment, with the restoring-states-authority-over-the-federal-government argument just the thinnest of smokescreens.


Have at it.

You "believe" ? I think its quite obvious that is fact! Everything the Republicans do is motivated by winning at any cost to democracy. Heck - a lot of them don't even think we should have a democracy. Republicans believe - and are correct - that if they limit the power of the American voter, they will be better positioned.

We don't have a democracy, it's a f*cking republic! There are some very good reasons for this if you would take the time to look into the difference and why it was done this way.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I would like to change it back to the states deciding their Senators. The reason, so less influence by corporate money. Also it would hopefully get rid of 30year Senators.

Are you serious? It's a lot easier to buy off a few politicians in a state legislature than a few million voters in a state.

All they currently buy off are Senators, they fund their re-election, then lobby them. More expensive to buy a state off than two Senators. Look how easy it was for insurance to make big bucks under Obamacare.

Senators get 'bought off' AFTER they become senators.

In a state legislature election of senators, there might be less than ten swing votes that could needed to be 'bought off'.