Time to repeal the 17th Amendment?

[danielpalos]

I don't support repealing the 17th amendment. I hold this opinion primarily because the source of information regarding our state representatives is much more limited than it is to our U.S. Senators. Thus the only ones I see benefitting from the repeal would be the political parties.

can you provide a few anecdotes, for examples?

 

[OldLady]

Why don't we just focus on that problem instead of handing our decisions over to another bunch of partisans?

You mean kill all the lawyers and start over?
.

Thanks, Plato.

 

[BluesLegend]

House representatives represent their district, Senators represent all the people in their state vs just one district. I'm fine with the people electing senators. No way do I want to give that power to state government which is corrupt as hell.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

Who knows what we see if we fundamentally changed the system back to as it originally was

Well, you might not know, but anyone with a lick of common sense knows that a Republican legislature would send two Republicans to the US Senate.

We would not see a state like Virginia with a Republican legislature and two Democratic US Senators.

It's funny you don't know that.

They don't represent the states interest , those clowns represent the liberals who fled washington DC high taxes and crime.


.

 

[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?

Who knows what we see if we fundamentally changed the system back to as it originally was

Well, you might not know, but anyone with a lick of common sense knows that a Republican legislature would send two Republicans to the US Senate.

We would not see a state like Virginia with a Republican legislature and two Democratic US Senators.

It's funny you don't know that.

They don't represent the states interest , those clowns represent the liberals who fled washington DC high taxes and crime.


.

Hmmm. It seems the point eludes you.

The very same people who voted for a Republican legislature also voted for two Democratic Senators.

So, by your own TardLogic™, the Virginia Republican-controlled legislature represents "the liberals who fled washington DC high taxes and crime" {sic}.

 

[my2¢]

I don't support repealing the 17th amendment. I hold this opinion primarily because the source of information regarding our state representatives is much more limited than it is to our U.S. Senators. Thus the only ones I see benefitting from the repeal would be the political parties.

can you provide a few anecdotes, for examples?

Just 37% of Americans can name their Representative | Haven Insights

If only 37% know the name of their U.S. representative, I'd have to guess those who can name their state representative is practically nil.

Here is my U.S. representative, Andy Biggs (Arizona's 5th congressional district):

​

​

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

Who knows what we see if we fundamentally changed the system back to as it originally was

Well, you might not know, but anyone with a lick of common sense knows that a Republican legislature would send two Republicans to the US Senate.

We would not see a state like Virginia with a Republican legislature and two Democratic US Senators.

It's funny you don't know that.

They don't represent the states interest , those clowns represent the liberals who fled washington DC high taxes and crime.


.

Hmmm. It seems the point eludes you.

The very same people who voted for a Republican legislature also voted for two Democratic Senators.

So, by your own TardLogic™, the Virginia Republican-controlled legislature represents "the liberals who fled washington DC high taxes and crime" {sic}.

So now you don't fucking know how state legistrators are elected El tardo?


Only you would try to deny they throw state elections like out of state college kids do

 

[OldLady]

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?

Could it be because state legislatures deal with different issues than federal?

 

[OldLady]

I don't support repealing the 17th amendment. I hold this opinion primarily because the source of information regarding our state representatives is much more limited than it is to our U.S. Senators. Thus the only ones I see benefitting from the repeal would be the political parties.

can you provide a few anecdotes, for examples?

Just 37% of Americans can name their Representative | Haven Insights

If only 37% know the name of their U.S. representative, I'd have to guess those who can name their state representative is practically nil.

Here is my U.S. representative, Andy Biggs (Arizona's 5th congressional district):

​

​

Bruce Poliquin.

 

[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?

Could it be because state legislatures deal with different issues than federal?

maybe. then again california is now trying to do their own net neutrality bill and the feds are clamping down on that as we speak. so the answer is as usual, it depends.

 

[OldLady]

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?

Could it be because state legislatures deal with different issues than federal?

maybe. then again california is now trying to do their own net neutrality bill and the feds are clamping down on that as we speak. so the answer is as usual, it depends.

Are you a Californian?

 

[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?

Could it be because state legislatures deal with different issues than federal?

maybe. then again california is now trying to do their own net neutrality bill and the feds are clamping down on that as we speak. so the answer is as usual, it depends.

Are you a Californian?

do you always have to be on some form of an attack?

no. i'm texan and i wish 50%+ of the californians who came over here would go back home and stop trying to change texas to be another california. we have austin, that's more than enough.

now explain to me how if california were to pass this bill, how it would affect people in other states? can you? are they counting on a lot of the data centers being IN california and having to comply on a bigger level outside of CA? can you talk to the issue at all or are you just snark dropping? we've got a lot other convos going on with nothing but insults, if we can engage in that in those threads i'd appreciate it. i have zero idea why every discussion has to turn into a fight.

 

[Dana7360]

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

in times prior to this, your seat on the senate was an appointment by the gov. there was never a time you were guaranteed 6 years cause you could be pulled as the gov wanted it for that particular state.

now that they're voted in they can control it in a manner we're seeing pretty abused these days. if we repeal it then we also in effect kill the need for term limits as the Gov would likely change them as they changed as well.

thoughts?

(not changing my original post but adding that i've been corrected on how they were appointed - see thread)

Conservatives are constantly saying they are the only ones who love our nation and constitution.

Yet they're the ones who have called for changing and or repealing things in that constitution.

You want to change the first amendment. You want to repeal the 13th, 14th, 19th and now the 17th. You also want to add an amendment to take reproductive freedom from women and cause women who's pregnancy has gone wrong to die.

If you love that document and believe in what it says, why do you people keep wanting to repeal parts of it?

 

[iceberg]

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

in times prior to this, your seat on the senate was an appointment by the gov. there was never a time you were guaranteed 6 years cause you could be pulled as the gov wanted it for that particular state.

now that they're voted in they can control it in a manner we're seeing pretty abused these days. if we repeal it then we also in effect kill the need for term limits as the Gov would likely change them as they changed as well.

thoughts?

(not changing my original post but adding that i've been corrected on how they were appointed - see thread)

Conservatives are constantly saying they are the only ones who love our nation and constitution.

Yet they're the ones who have called for changing and or repealing things in that constitution.

You want to change the first amendment. You want to repeal the 13th, 14th, 19th and now the 17th. You also want to add an amendment to take reproductive freedom from women and cause women who's pregnancy has gone wrong to die.

If you love that document and believe in what it says, why do you people keep wanting to repeal parts of it?

i would think the fact we *can* amend it and/or change it by "due process" is a sign of utilizing it. saying the right is abusing it by following processes in order to change it OF WHICH both sides have done over the course of our history is strange to me.

i don't want to change or repeal the 1st amendment. from what i understand however, the left wants to do away with the 2nd. funny you leave that out in your rush to include all you can in a singular direction. if the LEFT loves it so much, why repeal that? sounds stupid in that light doesn't it? your post came off just as bad.

as for your reproductive freedom, *I* don't care what you do so if you're addressing *me* then you may want to know *my* views before we start stereotyping.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't support repealing the 17th amendment. I hold this opinion primarily because the source of information regarding our state representatives is much more limited than it is to our U.S. Senators. Thus the only ones I see benefitting from the repeal would be the political parties.

can you provide a few anecdotes, for examples?

Just 37% of Americans can name their Representative | Haven Insights

If only 37% know the name of their U.S. representative, I'd have to guess those who can name their state representative is practically nil.

Here is my U.S. representative, Andy Biggs (Arizona's 5th congressional district):

​

​

there is a lot of information out there, and we do have political parties.

left wing policy is sometimes discovered as we go along.

 

[Dana7360]

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

in times prior to this, your seat on the senate was an appointment by the gov. there was never a time you were guaranteed 6 years cause you could be pulled as the gov wanted it for that particular state.

now that they're voted in they can control it in a manner we're seeing pretty abused these days. if we repeal it then we also in effect kill the need for term limits as the Gov would likely change them as they changed as well.

thoughts?

Believe it or not, Senators need to learn a lot of stuff. There are a million details about this subject and that they have to know in order to propose legislation, argue it intelligently and vote on it. What you're proposing would probably result in a lot of one term appointments. I'm not sure that's enough time for them to really get good at their jobs.

i'm proposing giving power back to the states where i do feel it belongs. i don't discount the "other stuff" that needs to be learned in order to do the job properly, but how much of that "other stuff" is *because* of what was created back when this amendment changed everything?

it would be a long process yes. but i do believe we'd be better for it in the end.

This strong drive to give the power back to the states on all important legislation would result in a total mess; it would be a patchwork of conflicting laws that would confuse everyone. We have totally open, fluid boundaries between states and very high traffic between them. I don't see this working well.

can you be more specific on how it would result in a mess? again i'm more concerned about long term than short. short term we seem hellbent on killing each other in slow moving stupidity of counter moves that are bringing us down as a whole. if we don't stop that we're literally killing our country.

something has to give. "business as usual" isn't doing it anymore.

I see your concern and I don't disagree with it.
Giving the power back to the states to chose our Congressional representatives is just throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
There has to be a way to resolve the gridlock in D.C. Perhaps continuing to make our dissatisfaction with it known will make a difference.

People need to vote.

Only 50% of the population voted in 2016.

If everyone who could legally vote in America actually did vote, we would have a very different government and world.

It's not enough for you to vote anymore. You need to get everyone you know to vote. You need to help people to vote. Fill your car and take people to the polling place on election day. Help people get a mail in ballot if they want to vote that way. Help people to get registered to vote.

Thousands of people have died so that we could vote. Personally, I don't take that lightly. I won't disrespect their sacrifice for me and everyone else by not voting. Especially women. We women had to go through hell to get the right to vote. Some women died. Others lost their children and families. Some were thrown in jail. Women didn't have a right to vote when my grandmothers were born. Personally, I just can't imagine such a thing. I won't disrespect their sacrifice.

The best thing anyone can do for our nation and democracy is to vote and get as many other people as they can to vote too.

 

[iceberg]

Believe it or not, Senators need to learn a lot of stuff. There are a million details about this subject and that they have to know in order to propose legislation, argue it intelligently and vote on it. What you're proposing would probably result in a lot of one term appointments. I'm not sure that's enough time for them to really get good at their jobs.

i'm proposing giving power back to the states where i do feel it belongs. i don't discount the "other stuff" that needs to be learned in order to do the job properly, but how much of that "other stuff" is *because* of what was created back when this amendment changed everything?

it would be a long process yes. but i do believe we'd be better for it in the end.

This strong drive to give the power back to the states on all important legislation would result in a total mess; it would be a patchwork of conflicting laws that would confuse everyone. We have totally open, fluid boundaries between states and very high traffic between them. I don't see this working well.

can you be more specific on how it would result in a mess? again i'm more concerned about long term than short. short term we seem hellbent on killing each other in slow moving stupidity of counter moves that are bringing us down as a whole. if we don't stop that we're literally killing our country.

something has to give. "business as usual" isn't doing it anymore.

I see your concern and I don't disagree with it.
Giving the power back to the states to chose our Congressional representatives is just throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
There has to be a way to resolve the gridlock in D.C. Perhaps continuing to make our dissatisfaction with it known will make a difference.

People need to vote.

Only 50% of the population voted in 2016.

If everyone who could legally vote in America actually did vote, we would have a very different government and world.

It's not enough for you to vote anymore. You need to get everyone you know to vote. You need to help people to vote. Fill your car and take people to the polling place on election day. Help people get a mail in ballot if they want to vote that way. Help people to get registered to vote.

Thousands of people have died so that we could vote. Personally, I don't take that lightly. I won't disrespect their sacrifice for me and everyone else by not voting. Especially women. We women had to go through hell to get the right to vote. Some women died. Others lost their children and families. Some were thrown in jail. Women didn't have a right to vote when my grandmothers were born. Personally, I just can't imagine such a thing. I won't disrespect their sacrifice.

The best thing anyone can do for our nation and democracy is to vote and get as many other people as they can to vote too.

i do agree we need to be more involved in our political process, sure. but i think many are jaded and/or feel the votes simply don't matter. trump vs. clinton? were you voting FOR someone or AGAINST the other?

mine was more against than for at the time. but so far so good. he's got his fleas to be sure, but he's not status quo OF WHICH i am tired of.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

We don't have to worry about any repeal of the 17th or any other Amendment that the republicans call to repeal.

They need two thirds of the House of Reps and two two thirds of the Senate to vote for it. Even then it's not repealed until the individual states get their say too. Three fourths of the states have to pass it too. Usually in a specified amount of time.

I've been seeing republicans calling for repealing of amendments or passing new amendments for years.

Nothing ever comes from it because as we all know, there is no way the nation agrees with that. Just try to convince most Americans that it's a good idea to take their right to vote for their representation in the US Senate away from them, I'm pretty sure that most Americans won't stand for that.

Along with all the other ridiculous things republicans want to do to that wonderful document that they claim they love so much but seem to want to change a lot of.

 

[OldLady]

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?

Could it be because state legislatures deal with different issues than federal?

maybe. then again california is now trying to do their own net neutrality bill and the feds are clamping down on that as we speak. so the answer is as usual, it depends.

Are you a Californian?

do you always have to be on some form of an attack?

no. i'm texan and i wish 50%+ of the californians who came over here would go back home and stop trying to change texas to be another california. we have austin, that's more than enough.

now explain to me how if california were to pass this bill, how it would affect people in other states? can you? are they counting on a lot of the data centers being IN california and having to comply on a bigger level outside of CA? can you talk to the issue at all or are you just snark dropping? we've got a lot other convos going on with nothing but insults, if we can engage in that in those threads i'd appreciate it. i have zero idea why every discussion has to turn into a fight.

What happened to you in the last hour? Geez. I'm outta here 'til your period's over.

 

[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?

Could it be because state legislatures deal with different issues than federal?

maybe. then again california is now trying to do their own net neutrality bill and the feds are clamping down on that as we speak. so the answer is as usual, it depends.

Are you a Californian?

do you always have to be on some form of an attack?

no. i'm texan and i wish 50%+ of the californians who came over here would go back home and stop trying to change texas to be another california. we have austin, that's more than enough.

now explain to me how if california were to pass this bill, how it would affect people in other states? can you? are they counting on a lot of the data centers being IN california and having to comply on a bigger level outside of CA? can you talk to the issue at all or are you just snark dropping? we've got a lot other convos going on with nothing but insults, if we can engage in that in those threads i'd appreciate it. i have zero idea why every discussion has to turn into a fight.

What happened to you in the last hour? Geez. I'm outta here 'til your period's over.

i'm trying to have a civil, intelligent conversation.

since you refuse - i'll just say good. take your bitch ass self elsewhere then while the adults talk through the important stuff.