Repeal the 17th Amendment!

[Peach]

Not really think about this for a moment, let's say that your state rep. happens to be someone you did not vote for and happens to support a candidate for Senate along with a majority of those in the State legislature that would not otherwise garner votes from the general public in a direct election. In that regard, the Senator of that State was not elected by the people but was elected by an Agent. It's much along the same lines as say Sec. of State. , the current holder of the White House picks a Sec. of State who is then voted on , however if you did not vote for that President, you have little to do with the current Sec. of State. One other thing of note here is this, while it's fun to debate this issue the 17th will never be repealed because at its core those that seek to repeal it seek to take away the right to vote for a Senator directly and not only that , you would have to to get 2/3rds of the states to agree to it which won't happen.

Think of it this way, if the Senate was done away with all together, then if you happen live in those Red States, you will soon find yourself at the mercy of a small number of blue states or at the very least one party which happens to dominate the bigger more populated states would in turn make most of the laws for every other state, and I suspect those who founded this nation had an idea about this and thus the reason why we have a Senate.

And if you live in a state that has more "red" districts than "blue", the city dwellers don't overrun those in the country via the strength of sheer urban population....I know, the State of Wisconsin has pretty much been run by the liberoidal douchebags in the Madison-Milwaukee axis for decades now, even though most of the land is controlled by people who live far more conservatively.

Ahh, but Oddball, take away the Senate and that is exactly what will happen. While I understand that population is more concentrated in say for example Madison, etc. vs. Land owners in the rest of the state, imagine a nation where there was no Senate dominated by the large population states. States like WI. would soon find themselves adopting California Air standards because they would have only proportional representation to pass laws for them. Frankly, the only thing wrong with the Senate in the last 25 years has been an American public that simply allows Senators to return to office year after year, and then wonders why nothing is getting done. Perhaps the best place to start is in the voting booth ?

 

[Oddball]

Not really think about this for a moment, let's say that your state rep. happens to be someone you did not vote for and happens to support a candidate for Senate along with a majority of those in the State legislature that would not otherwise garner votes from the general public in a direct election. In that regard, the Senator of that State was not elected by the people but was elected by an Agent. It's much along the same lines as say Sec. of State. , the current holder of the White House picks a Sec. of State who is then voted on , however if you did not vote for that President, you have little to do with the current Sec. of State. One other thing of note here is this, while it's fun to debate this issue the 17th will never be repealed because at its core those that seek to repeal it seek to take away the right to vote for a Senator directly and not only that , you would have to to get 2/3rds of the states to agree to it which won't happen.

Think of it this way, if the Senate was done away with all together, then if you happen live in those Red States, you will soon find yourself at the mercy of a small number of blue states or at the very least one party which happens to dominate the bigger more populated states would in turn make most of the laws for every other state, and I suspect those who founded this nation had an idea about this and thus the reason why we have a Senate.

And if you live in a state that has more "red" districts than "blue", the city dwellers don't overrun those in the country via the strength of sheer urban population....I know, the State of Wisconsin has pretty much been run by the liberoidal douchebags in the Madison-Milwaukee axis for decades now, even though most of the land is controlled by people who live far more conservatively.

Ahh, but Oddball, take away the Senate and that is exactly what will happen. While I understand that population is more concentrated in say for example Madison, etc. vs. Land owners in the rest of the state, imagine a nation where there was no Senate dominated by the large population states. States like WI. would soon find themselves adopting California Air standards because they would have only proportional representation to pass laws for them. Frankly, the only thing wrong with the Senate in the last 25 years has been an American public that simply allows Senators to return to office year after year, and then wonders why nothing is getting done. Perhaps the best place to start is in the voting booth ?

Nonsense.....Nobody is talking about taking away the Senate.

And I completely fail to understand what the federal Senate has to do with a state like California passing its own environmental policies.

 

[Oddball]

I do have a suggestion though, if the reason for getting rid of the 17th Amendment is based on the fact that Senators tend to park their backsides in the Senate till they gather dust, then perhaps the best way to go about this is not to seek to remove the right of people to elect their own Senators. I can suggest two methods, the first one is an easy one, stop voting for the incumbent time after time after time, only because they happen to be in the same party you are in ( take your pick on that one). The other suggestion is, rather than spin your wheels on an Amendment to the Constitution thats doomed to failure, perhaps one that seeks to add term limits to US Senators much the same as the President now has.

There aren't enough numbers in congress for the members to vote themselves out of office....USSC already ruled that state term limits laws don't apply to federal offices.

I didn't say state term limits, I said a Constitutional Amendment.

22nd Amendment

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

You'd have to pass another Amendment, as there's no process for amending a currently standing Amendment.

 

[rightwinger]

But you do, albeit indirectly, get to choose who your Senators are, by electing state representatives who will support your choice for who that will be.

What's happening at the core boils down to a variation on the electoral college within the states.

Not really think about this for a moment, let's say that your state rep. happens to be someone you did not vote for and happens to support a candidate for Senate along with a majority of those in the State legislature that would not otherwise garner votes from the general public in a direct election. In that regard, the Senator of that State was not elected by the people but was elected by an Agent. It's much along the same lines as say Sec. of State. , the current holder of the White House picks a Sec. of State who is then voted on , however if you did not vote for that President, you have little to do with the current Sec. of State. One other thing of note here is this, while it's fun to debate this issue the 17th will never be repealed because at its core those that seek to repeal it seek to take away the right to vote for a Senator directly and not only that , you would have to to get 2/3rds of the states to agree to it which won't happen.

Think of it this way, if the Senate was done away with all together, then if you happen live in those Red States, you will soon find yourself at the mercy of a small number of blue states or at the very least one party which happens to dominate the bigger more populated states would in turn make most of the laws for every other state, and I suspect those who founded this nation had an idea about this and thus the reason why we have a Senate.

And if you live in a state that has more "red" districts than "blue", the city dwellers don't overrun those in the country via the strength of sheer urban population....I know, the State of Wisconsin has pretty much been run by the liberoidal douchebags in the Madison-Milwaukee axis for decades now, even though most of the land is controlled by people who live far more conservatively.

Land does not vote....people do

Who controls the most land in a state is irrelevant

The voter in Madison-Milwaukee has the same vote as the farmer with 500 acres

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nobody's talking to you, dicknose.

Now, if you don't mind, some adults are having a conversation.....Go chase manifold around.

loser

 

[Oddball]

Not really think about this for a moment, let's say that your state rep. happens to be someone you did not vote for and happens to support a candidate for Senate along with a majority of those in the State legislature that would not otherwise garner votes from the general public in a direct election. In that regard, the Senator of that State was not elected by the people but was elected by an Agent. It's much along the same lines as say Sec. of State. , the current holder of the White House picks a Sec. of State who is then voted on , however if you did not vote for that President, you have little to do with the current Sec. of State. One other thing of note here is this, while it's fun to debate this issue the 17th will never be repealed because at its core those that seek to repeal it seek to take away the right to vote for a Senator directly and not only that , you would have to to get 2/3rds of the states to agree to it which won't happen.

Think of it this way, if the Senate was done away with all together, then if you happen live in those Red States, you will soon find yourself at the mercy of a small number of blue states or at the very least one party which happens to dominate the bigger more populated states would in turn make most of the laws for every other state, and I suspect those who founded this nation had an idea about this and thus the reason why we have a Senate.

And if you live in a state that has more "red" districts than "blue", the city dwellers don't overrun those in the country via the strength of sheer urban population....I know, the State of Wisconsin has pretty much been run by the liberoidal douchebags in the Madison-Milwaukee axis for decades now, even though most of the land is controlled by people who live far more conservatively.

Land does not vote....people do

Who controls the most land in a state is irrelevant

The voter in Madison-Milwaukee has the same vote as the farmer with 500 acres

Since it is generally those who who have the less (i.e. city dwellers) that try to vote themselves the resources of those who have more than they, it makes perfect sense for those who have more to lose to have a balanced say in the political arena.

 

[freedombecki]

You get your choice for Senators at the state level, when you vote for your state legislatures and Governor....Therefore, when you have the natural turnover which occurs within the state houses, then your Senators also tend to turn over, rather than them being a reflection of how your state operated several decades ago....Then you don't have a basically imperial Senate, populated with fossils like Dole, McCain, Kennedy, Byrd, Lugar, ad nauseum, hanging around like herpes.

You are taking away my vote and putting your faith in the government on how I should be governed. You are taking away my individual choice. That is Big Gubmint.

And, as I pointed out earlier, federal spending and bureaucracy has swelled in the last century, from the scant couple of percent it was for the first 150 years of America's existence, to a level approaching 1/4 of all GDP...If you want to claim that this is all coincidental, I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Why do you assume it wouldn't be more spending? Are you arguing that state politicians are less venal and corrupt? If so, whatever you're smoking, pass me some. The idea that an unelected Senate would adhere closer to the principles of the Founding Fathers is merely romantic claptrap.

Toro, you are a voter like few others, but people going into the polls for the first time are often simply voting for a beauty contest with the most physically beautiful person with a modicum of camera composure, their choice.

The founders did not set the Senate up to be a beauty contest ON PURPOSE. Yes, scandals happen, but nothing compared to what the press ignores today. Nothing.

They used to be the Fifth Column when they practiced reporting facts. Now they report what a political base wishes to hear rather than the facts, and at the end, they vilify a conservative and promote a liberal who uses botox and spends serious time at a hairdresser's rather than a law library.

Just sayin'.

 

[Navy1960]

And if you live in a state that has more "red" districts than "blue", the city dwellers don't overrun those in the country via the strength of sheer urban population....I know, the State of Wisconsin has pretty much been run by the liberoidal douchebags in the Madison-Milwaukee axis for decades now, even though most of the land is controlled by people who live far more conservatively.

Ahh, but Oddball, take away the Senate and that is exactly what will happen. While I understand that population is more concentrated in say for example Madison, etc. vs. Land owners in the rest of the state, imagine a nation where there was no Senate dominated by the large population states. States like WI. would soon find themselves adopting California Air standards because they would have only proportional representation to pass laws for them. Frankly, the only thing wrong with the Senate in the last 25 years has been an American public that simply allows Senators to return to office year after year, and then wonders why nothing is getting done. Perhaps the best place to start is in the voting booth ?

Nonsense.....Nobody is talking about taking away the Senate.

And I completely fail to understand what the federal Senate has to do with a state like California passing its own environmental policies.

Several people in this thread have advocated for just that, your posting complained about the people Madison you did not like, I suspect like most states a large majority of WI. citizens live in or near large cities and in that your going to have more representation based on that. The same applies to the US House, so let's say for a moment we don't have a Senate and states like California wish to promote a policy that while good for California is not so good for the rest of the nation upon the rest of the nation anyway, all they need do is align with a few of the larger population House members and smaller states like WI. would soon find themselves with laws they do not like nor want. In short it was an example, As for the repeal of the 17th let's say for a moment you do go back to state legislatures picking Senators, then we go back to the same thing I stated earlier in that, state legislatures are not bound by the voters to select anyone or vote for anyone, more so they can choose whomever they wish for the position, and you will again find yourself with laws you don't like. In short the best thing to do is vote for the guy you want, and vote out the guy you don't.

 

[Oddball]

Why do you assume it wouldn't be more spending? Are you arguing that state politicians are less venal and corrupt? If so, whatever you're smoking, pass me some. The idea that an unelected Senate would adhere closer to the principles of the Founding Fathers is merely romantic claptrap.

Because, with apportionment anyways, the onus for collecting federal taxes was passed onto state agencies....This is why there was no income tax either.

If the Senators passed along a huge tax increase onto the states for collection, there'd be hell to pay from the Senator(s), to the state lawmakers, to the Governor for seating such a person.

 

[Navy1960]

There aren't enough numbers in congress for the members to vote themselves out of office....USSC already ruled that state term limits laws don't apply to federal offices.

I didn't say state term limits, I said a Constitutional Amendment.

22nd Amendment

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

You'd have to pass another Amendment, as there's no process for amending a currently standing Amendment.

I didn't say otherwise, and in fact in order to repeal the 17th you would have to do the same thing, that is why in a previous posting I mentioned why bother with this because it will never fly and you would have a better chance of Amending the constitution with term limits for Senators like the 22nd does for the President.

 

[rightwinger]

And if you live in a state that has more "red" districts than "blue", the city dwellers don't overrun those in the country via the strength of sheer urban population....I know, the State of Wisconsin has pretty much been run by the liberoidal douchebags in the Madison-Milwaukee axis for decades now, even though most of the land is controlled by people who live far more conservatively.

Land does not vote....people do

Who controls the most land in a state is irrelevant

The voter in Madison-Milwaukee has the same vote as the farmer with 500 acres

Since it is generally those who who have the less (i.e. city dwellers) that try to vote themselves the resources of those who have more than they, it makes perfect sense for those who have more to lose to have a balanced say in the political arena.

One man....one vote

One of the founding principles of our country. The vote of some bum living in a cardboard box counts the same as a mega millionaires. What a country!

 

[Oddball]

Ahh, but Oddball, take away the Senate and that is exactly what will happen. While I understand that population is more concentrated in say for example Madison, etc. vs. Land owners in the rest of the state, imagine a nation where there was no Senate dominated by the large population states. States like WI. would soon find themselves adopting California Air standards because they would have only proportional representation to pass laws for them. Frankly, the only thing wrong with the Senate in the last 25 years has been an American public that simply allows Senators to return to office year after year, and then wonders why nothing is getting done. Perhaps the best place to start is in the voting booth ?

Nonsense.....Nobody is talking about taking away the Senate.

And I completely fail to understand what the federal Senate has to do with a state like California passing its own environmental policies.

Several people in this thread have advocated for just that, your posting complained about the people Madison you did not like, I suspect like most states a large majority of WI. citizens live in or near large cities and in that your going to have more representation based on that. The same applies to the US House, so let's say for a moment we don't have a Senate and states like California wish to promote a policy that while good for California is not so good for the rest of the nation upon the rest of the nation anyway, all they need do is align with a few of the larger population House members and smaller states like WI. would soon find themselves with laws they do not like nor want. In short it was an example, As for the repeal of the 17th let's say for a moment you do go back to state legislatures picking Senators, then we go back to the same thing I stated earlier in that, state legislatures are not bound by the voters to select anyone or vote for anyone, more so they can choose whomever they wish for the position, and you will again find yourself with laws you don't like. In short the best thing to do is vote for the guy you want, and vote out the guy you don't.

They're bound in the same way that they are when they push for the legislation that they claim to want while they're campaigning...Also by the fact that they have to go back to their districts and face their friends and neighbors and account for why, in the worst case scenario, that they sold out their constituents.

Y'know....That accountability thingy we keep hearing about, yet get nearly none of.

 

[Navy1960]

Here is anoher thing to consider here, I can think that the loudest scream for Term Limits for US Senators would come from Lobbyists, imagine K Street having to form new relationships every so often, far be it from the American puplic to make life harder on K Street.

 

[Peach]

Land does not vote....people do

Who controls the most land in a state is irrelevant

The voter in Madison-Milwaukee has the same vote as the farmer with 500 acres

Since it is generally those who who have the less (i.e. city dwellers) that try to vote themselves the resources of those who have more than they, it makes perfect sense for those who have more to lose to have a balanced say in the political arena.

One man....one vote

One of the founding principles of our country. The vote of some bum living in a cardboard box counts the same as a mega millionaires. What a country!

YES! And we need no Amendments that limit our right to vote for the candidate we choose.

 

[Oddball]

Land does not vote....people do

Who controls the most land in a state is irrelevant

The voter in Madison-Milwaukee has the same vote as the farmer with 500 acres

Since it is generally those who who have the less (i.e. city dwellers) that try to vote themselves the resources of those who have more than they, it makes perfect sense for those who have more to lose to have a balanced say in the political arena.

One man....one vote

One of the founding principles of our country. The vote of some bum living in a cardboard box counts the same as a mega millionaires. What a country!

One man one vote is mobocracy...The kind where the looters and layabouts vote themselves the possessions of the industrious and productive.

But we already know that you like mob rule, so it's easy to understand your support for the moocher and the thug.

 

[Navy1960]

Nonsense.....Nobody is talking about taking away the Senate.

And I completely fail to understand what the federal Senate has to do with a state like California passing its own environmental policies.

Several people in this thread have advocated for just that, your posting complained about the people Madison you did not like, I suspect like most states a large majority of WI. citizens live in or near large cities and in that your going to have more representation based on that. The same applies to the US House, so let's say for a moment we don't have a Senate and states like California wish to promote a policy that while good for California is not so good for the rest of the nation upon the rest of the nation anyway, all they need do is align with a few of the larger population House members and smaller states like WI. would soon find themselves with laws they do not like nor want. In short it was an example, As for the repeal of the 17th let's say for a moment you do go back to state legislatures picking Senators, then we go back to the same thing I stated earlier in that, state legislatures are not bound by the voters to select anyone or vote for anyone, more so they can choose whomever they wish for the position, and you will again find yourself with laws you don't like. In short the best thing to do is vote for the guy you want, and vote out the guy you don't.

They're bound in the same way that they are when they push for the legislation that they claim to want while they're campaigning...Also by the fact that they have to go back to their districts and face their friends and neighbors and account for why, in the worst case scenario, that they sold out their constituents.

Y'know....That accountability thingy we keep hearing about, yet get nearly none of.

While I agree completely on the accountability thing and wish it were true, how many times have we seen Legislators vote for bills both for and against that have wide public support and and wide public negatives, then when election time comes around that accountability thing seems to evaporate? Personally, I prefer making the choice myself for those who will represent me in Washington D.C. and not some Agent or State Rep. who not only have the power for that vote, but the power to select whomever they wished for the post.

 

[Oddball]

Several people in this thread have advocated for just that, your posting complained about the people Madison you did not like, I suspect like most states a large majority of WI. citizens live in or near large cities and in that your going to have more representation based on that. The same applies to the US House, so let's say for a moment we don't have a Senate and states like California wish to promote a policy that while good for California is not so good for the rest of the nation upon the rest of the nation anyway, all they need do is align with a few of the larger population House members and smaller states like WI. would soon find themselves with laws they do not like nor want. In short it was an example, As for the repeal of the 17th let's say for a moment you do go back to state legislatures picking Senators, then we go back to the same thing I stated earlier in that, state legislatures are not bound by the voters to select anyone or vote for anyone, more so they can choose whomever they wish for the position, and you will again find yourself with laws you don't like. In short the best thing to do is vote for the guy you want, and vote out the guy you don't.

They're bound in the same way that they are when they push for the legislation that they claim to want while they're campaigning...Also by the fact that they have to go back to their districts and face their friends and neighbors and account for why, in the worst case scenario, that they sold out their constituents.

Y'know....That accountability thingy we keep hearing about, yet get nearly none of.

While I agree completely on the accountability thing and wish it were true, how many times have we seen Legislators vote for bills both for and against that have wide public support and and wide public negatives, then when election time comes around that accountability thing seems to evaporate? Personally, I prefer making the choice myself for those who will represent me in Washington D.C. and not some Agent or State Rep. who not only have the power for that vote, but the power to select whomever they wished for the post.

How different do you think that would be if the legislator in question had to go back to his district and face his friends and neighbors, for supporting the appointment of a Senator who acted in such a brazenly callous manner?

With Senators elected in statewide races, you get none of that....Senators just campaign in the population centers and that's it.

 

[Navy1960]

They're bound in the same way that they are when they push for the legislation that they claim to want while they're campaigning...Also by the fact that they have to go back to their districts and face their friends and neighbors and account for why, in the worst case scenario, that they sold out their constituents.

Y'know....That accountability thingy we keep hearing about, yet get nearly none of.

While I agree completely on the accountability thing and wish it were true, how many times have we seen Legislators vote for bills both for and against that have wide public support and and wide public negatives, then when election time comes around that accountability thing seems to evaporate? Personally, I prefer making the choice myself for those who will represent me in Washington D.C. and not some Agent or State Rep. who not only have the power for that vote, but the power to select whomever they wished for the post.

How different do you think that would be if the legislator in question had to go back to his district and face his friends and neighbors, for supporting the appointment of a Senator who acted in such a brazenly callous manner?

With Senators elected in statewide races, you get none of that....Senators just campaign in the population centers and that's it.

I can't say much for other states but here in Arizona based on our recent history in the last 10 years not much. I submit to you that the reason most Senators sit in Washington to long or seem to is not because of unfairness so much as it is, we the voters tend to just look for the team jersey when voting and that sort of thing lends itself to candidates be it the Senate or House staying longer than they need too. As for beholding to voter, I would submit to you that a Senator that is elected by the voter owes more to the voter than say one wh is free to do as he or she pleases that was put there by a legislature and owes nothing to the citizens of the State. I do however agree with Madison's view of the situation and that is what the current "popular mood" is at the time. I would frankly submit to you that Americans popular mood at this point in time is along the lines of the 17th Amendment Justice Scalia's opinions not withstanding.

 

[Peach]

Here is anoher thing to consider here, I can think that the loudest scream for Term Limits for US Senators would come from Lobbyists, imagine K Street having to form new relationships every so often, far be it from the American puplic to make life harder on K Street.

True, but voters would need to pay more attention. Too many Americans don't even bother TO vote.

 

[Oddball]

While I agree completely on the accountability thing and wish it were true, how many times have we seen Legislators vote for bills both for and against that have wide public support and and wide public negatives, then when election time comes around that accountability thing seems to evaporate? Personally, I prefer making the choice myself for those who will represent me in Washington D.C. and not some Agent or State Rep. who not only have the power for that vote, but the power to select whomever they wished for the post.

How different do you think that would be if the legislator in question had to go back to his district and face his friends and neighbors, for supporting the appointment of a Senator who acted in such a brazenly callous manner?

With Senators elected in statewide races, you get none of that....Senators just campaign in the population centers and that's it.

I can't say much for other states but here in Arizona based on our recent history in the last 10 years not much. I submit to you that the reason most Senators sit in Washington to long or seem to is not because of unfairness so much as it is, we the voters tend to just look for the team jersey when voting and that sort of thing lends itself to candidates be it the Senate or House staying longer than they need too. As for beholding to voter, I would submit to you that a Senator that is elected by the voter owes more to the voter than say one wh is free to do as he or she pleases that was put there by a legislature and owes nothing to the citizens of the State. I do however agree with Madison's view of the situation and that is what the current "popular mood" is at the time. I would frankly submit to you that Americans popular mood at this point in time is along the lines of the 17th Amendment Justice Scalia's opinions not withstanding.

Why would a Senator be more beholden to any given voter in Yuma of Winslow, when he can just go campaign in Phoenix/Tucson, get re-re-re-elected and just tell the outstaters to shove it if they don't like it?