Time to repeal the 17th Amendment?

[iceberg]

Here is the real reason there is a movement on the Right to repeal the 17th Amendment:

After the 2016 election, 32 state legislatures were controlled by Republicans in both houses. Without the 17th Amendment, we would therefore probably have AT LEAST 64 Republicans in the US Senate, and only 36 Democrats at most.

The Republicans would be able to ram through alcoholic judges, Muslim bans, gay marriage bans, Jim Crow laws, etc.

That's why you hear talk about the 17th Amendment.

This has nothing to do with denying a state's equal suffrage. That's just a smoke screen.



Let's do another thought experiment.

Imagine all the urban dwellers in America were concentrated in one state, which I shall call Eschaton. And let's say they make up 52% of the entire population of the country.

Without the 17th Amendment, that would mean 49 percent of the population would send 98 Republican Senators to Washington while the great state of Eschaton would send just 2.

That is some serious overweightage of rural voters!

But down in the humble House, thanks to districting based on population, there are 226 Democratic Representatives and 208 Republicans.

The 49 rural states would have a hard time screwing over the state of Eschaton, thanks to the Democratic majority in the House.

On the flip side, let's go with the popular vote, and send 52 Democrats and 48 Republicans to the Senate.

Now a single state could fuck over the other 49 since it controls both houses of Congress.

How is that fair?


ETA: In actuality, 80 percent of Americans live in urban areas.

never said it was. but it does sound like the left wanting to do POPULAR vote cause california could carry it.

 

[g5000]

Despite the voters of 32 states electing Republican state legislatures, those same states did not elect 64 US Senators. A lot of them elected Democrats to the US Senate.

Why do we have this strange disparity? Anyone?

 

[Darkwind]

State legislatures.

And who would decide the candidates to chose from? Would the legislature just put up whomever they wanted, or would the people primary a few "finalists" ?

Here is an opportunity for you to learn something.

Research how they did it prior to the passing of the 17th.

Who the fuck are you, my social studies teacher? If someone is going to propose a radical change in how we are represented, I see no problem in asking how that is to be accomplished. It would not have to go back to the way it was, necessarily.

By repealing the 17th Amendment, the Constitution would revert back to what it was BEFORE that passing of that Amendment. There was a process and it worked well for over a hundred years. That process would be retained.

Hey, if you want to remain ignorant, knock yourself out. I personally could not care less.

BTW...this is NOT a radical change. The passage of the 17th WAS the radical change.

but not without reasons that should be taken into consideration before simply removing it, it would seem.

I don't follow. Do you mean they had a reason for passing it?

Of course, they did. More money and more power. Plus they wouldn't be held responsible by the legislature that the people of their state elected.

We see the results of that poor decision today.

 

[iceberg]

Despite the voters of 32 states electing Republican state legislatures, those same states did not elect 64 US Senators. A lot of them elected Democrats to the US Senate.

Why do we have this strange disparity? Anyone?

i'm not saying it may not even things out - i am saying it's being abused to the point of yet becoming another problem that needs to be corrected.

 

[Darkwind]

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 permanent 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.

Republicans are likely to have at least 54 seats anyway. That seems a lot of work for little yield.

The advantages of repeal for the health of our republic are numerous:

Restore the check on the Feds

Empower the states

Weaken the influence of special interest groups on the Fed

I would argue that it would also hurt the duopoly. Third parties could focus State legislature campaigns and might even get some senate representation this way.

This is key as well. It is far easier to get independents elected at the local and state level. This is a direct threat to the two-party system.

 

[g5000]

Despite the voters of 32 states electing Republican state legislatures, those same states did not elect 64 US Senators. A lot of them elected Democrats to the US Senate.

Why do we have this strange disparity? Anyone?

i'm not saying it may not even things out - i am saying it's being abused to the point of yet becoming another problem that needs to be corrected.

The abuse is being caused by polarization. Each party has become more and more polarized over the years.

That has nothing to do with the 17th Amendment.

 

[g5000]

When you call someone a "RINO", you are part of the problem. You are saying they aren't extreme enough. You are being polarizing.

 

[g5000]

Our Founders did not expect, much less anticipate, the rise of partisan politics. They did not envision political parties.

It did not take long for parties and partisanship to erupt. The ink was barely dry on the Constitution before our country began splitting apart.

One wonders what our Founders would have done differently had they known this was going to happen.

 

[Avatar4321]

Despite the voters of 32 states electing Republican state legislatures, those same states did not elect 64 US Senators. A lot of them elected Democrats to the US Senate.

Why do we have this strange disparity? Anyone?

A number of reasons. One key one is only one third of the senate is elected at a time.

Something you aren’t factoring into anything

 

[g5000]

Despite the voters of 32 states electing Republican state legislatures, those same states did not elect 64 US Senators. A lot of them elected Democrats to the US Senate.

Why do we have this strange disparity? Anyone?

A number of reasons. One key one is only one third of the senate is elected at a time.

Something you aren’t factoring into anything

So? We have had a majority of states with Republican legislatures for a lot longer than six years.

And yet we do not have 60 Republican Senators.

 

[OldLady]

Okay, who in each state would do the chosing?

State legislatures.

And who would decide the candidates to chose from? Would the legislature just put up whomever they wanted, or would the people primary a few "finalists" ?

Here is an opportunity for you to learn something.

Research how they did it prior to the passing of the 17th.

Who the fuck are you, my social studies teacher? If someone is going to propose a radical change in how we are represented, I see no problem in asking how that is to be accomplished. It would not have to go back to the way it was, necessarily.

well there goes civil discourse.

hey, i put that same "task" on me also as i don't know near enough about the amendment, what it changed nor why it was changed.

asking how is great. that's what i'm doing and til now it was good conversation. but while asking is great, i add my own research and education to the list or how can i effectively argue either direction? i'd be repeating bullets from people i trust and/or like and that's far too common as it is. i created this thread to learn the very questions you're asking now and someone saying "do some research" isn't a bad idea.

Sorry I messed up your thread.

 

[Darkwind]

Despite the voters of 32 states electing Republican state legislatures, those same states did not elect 64 US Senators. A lot of them elected Democrats to the US Senate.

Why do we have this strange disparity? Anyone?

A number of reasons. One key one is only one third of the senate is elected at a time.

Something you aren’t factoring into anything

Yes, that is why the Senate is still in its first session.

 

[OldLady]

Okay, who in each state would do the chosing?

State legislatures.

And who would decide the candidates to chose from? Would the legislature just put up whomever they wanted, or would the people primary a few "finalists" ?

Here is an opportunity for you to learn something.

Research how they did it prior to the passing of the 17th.

Who the fuck are you, my social studies teacher? If someone is going to propose a radical change in how we are represented, I see no problem in asking how that is to be accomplished. It would not have to go back to the way it was, necessarily.

By repealing the 17th Amendment, the Constitution would revert back to what it was BEFORE that passing of that Amendment. There was a process and it worked well for over a hundred years. That process would be retained.

Hey, if you want to remain ignorant, knock yourself out. I personally could not care less.

BTW...this is NOT a radical change. The passage of the 17th WAS the radical change.

Well, reading the Constitution is simple enough. Thanks for telling me where to go. It was way too complicated a question for Google.

 

[Avatar4321]

Our Founders did not expect, much less anticipate, the rise of partisan politics. They did not envision political parties.

It did not take long for parties and partisanship to erupt. The ink was barely dry on the Constitution before our country began splitting apart.

One wonders what our Founders would have done differently had they known this was going to happen.

They wouldn’t have done anything different. They gave us the best system they could at the time

 

[iceberg]

State legislatures.

And who would decide the candidates to chose from? Would the legislature just put up whomever they wanted, or would the people primary a few "finalists" ?

Here is an opportunity for you to learn something.

Research how they did it prior to the passing of the 17th.

Who the fuck are you, my social studies teacher? If someone is going to propose a radical change in how we are represented, I see no problem in asking how that is to be accomplished. It would not have to go back to the way it was, necessarily.

well there goes civil discourse.

hey, i put that same "task" on me also as i don't know near enough about the amendment, what it changed nor why it was changed.

asking how is great. that's what i'm doing and til now it was good conversation. but while asking is great, i add my own research and education to the list or how can i effectively argue either direction? i'd be repeating bullets from people i trust and/or like and that's far too common as it is. i created this thread to learn the very questions you're asking now and someone saying "do some research" isn't a bad idea.

Sorry I messed up your thread.

in here? pffft - very lightweight. appreciate your input on the topic.

 

[iceberg]

When you call someone a "RINO", you are part of the problem. You are saying they aren't extreme enough. You are being polarizing.

when you mock and insult people at every turn, you're part of the problem. NOT AIMED AT YOU - but it's far too common these days for people to generalize/stereotype and attack individuals for "groupthink" based on 1 or 2 stances on positions.

 

[g5000]

Virginia has a Republican controlled legislature, and yet both of their US Senators are Democrats.

What are the odds we would see that without the 17th Amendment?

 

[Avatar4321]

Despite the voters of 32 states electing Republican state legislatures, those same states did not elect 64 US Senators. A lot of them elected Democrats to the US Senate.

Why do we have this strange disparity? Anyone?

A number of reasons. One key one is only one third of the senate is elected at a time.

Something you aren’t factoring into anything

So? We have had a majority of states with Republican legislatures for a lot longer than six years.

And yet we do not have 60 Republican Senators.

We might in January

 

[g5000]

Okay, who in each state would do the chosing?

State legislatures.

And who would decide the candidates to chose from? Would the legislature just put up whomever they wanted, or would the people primary a few "finalists" ?

Here is an opportunity for you to learn something.

Research how they did it prior to the passing of the 17th.

Who the fuck are you, my social studies teacher? If someone is going to propose a radical change in how we are represented, I see no problem in asking how that is to be accomplished. It would not have to go back to the way it was, necessarily.

By repealing the 17th Amendment, the Constitution would revert back to what it was BEFORE that passing of that Amendment. There was a process and it worked well for over a hundred years. That process would be retained.

Hey, if you want to remain ignorant, knock yourself out. I personally could not care less.

BTW...this is NOT a radical change. The passage of the 17th WAS the radical change.

It is false to say the process worked well for over a hundred years. It didn't. Not at all. I posted the evidence in post 40 that it was an unmitigated disaster.

A supermajority of America would not have changed it if it was working well.

 

[Darkwind]

State legislatures.

And who would decide the candidates to chose from? Would the legislature just put up whomever they wanted, or would the people primary a few "finalists" ?

Here is an opportunity for you to learn something.

Research how they did it prior to the passing of the 17th.

Who the fuck are you, my social studies teacher? If someone is going to propose a radical change in how we are represented, I see no problem in asking how that is to be accomplished. It would not have to go back to the way it was, necessarily.

By repealing the 17th Amendment, the Constitution would revert back to what it was BEFORE that passing of that Amendment. There was a process and it worked well for over a hundred years. That process would be retained.

Hey, if you want to remain ignorant, knock yourself out. I personally could not care less.

BTW...this is NOT a radical change. The passage of the 17th WAS the radical change.

Well, reading the Constitution is simple enough. Thanks for telling me where to go. It was way too complicated a question for Google.

Repeal The 17th Amendment And End Direct Election Of Senators