Sasse (R - Nebraska) proposes ending direct election of US Senators

[j brown's body]

By 2040, 2/3rds of the population will be represented by 30% of the Senate, making it a mockery of even representative democracy.

 

[Slartibartfast]

No surprise, money is god to all of them.

History goes in cycles. As the power gets concentrated to a few, we tend to see what we are seeing today.

 

[element94]

History goes in cycles. As the power gets concentrated to a few, we tend to see what we are seeing today.

There will have to be a tipping point.

 

[Slartibartfast]

There will have to be a tipping point.

I think there has been one. No matter who is elected, this unrest will not go away and we very likely see more unrest on the conservative side on top of it. I think things will eventually get better, but we are in for a rocky few years no matter what.

 

[PirateMk1]

Black people were equal to white men under the eyes of the law in both written word and behavior at the time?

The correct answer is, it depends. Equality in the eyes of man and justice was a two way street that depended mainly on how much money one had. Just like today.

 

[Helix]

Sasse (R - Nebraska) proposes ending direct election of US Senators

of course he does.

State Partisan Composition

Republicans : not only anti-Democratic, but also anti-democratic.

 

[Lisa]

Sasse proposes ending direct election of U.S. senators | Politics | omaha.com


He wants to take away people's ability to vote for their Senators and have the gerrymandered State Legislators do it for them.


He actually does have a few good ideas. This isn't one of them though.


And he told the truth about a few things including “So we’re going to need to tell the truth about the fact that the Senate is a dysfunctional institution..."

How does he plan to repeal the 17th amendment? What does he hope to gain by doing so?

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

The correct answer is, it depends. Equality in the eyes of man and justice was a two way street that depended mainly on how much money one had. Just like today.

What did it depend on? I think the main criteria was not being Black but I’m open to persuasion.

 

[PirateMk1]

What did it depend on? I think the main criteria was not being Black but I’m open to persuasion.

What its always depended on, money.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

What its always depended on, money.

So I guess it’s just coincidence that the system was set up to exclude Black people from making any.

 

[jimbo]

Sasse proposes ending direct election of U.S. senators | Politics | omaha.com


He wants to take away people's ability to vote for their Senators and have the gerrymandered State Legislators do it for them.


He actually does have a few good ideas. This isn't one of them though.


And he told the truth about a few things including “So we’re going to need to tell the truth about the fact that the Senate is a dysfunctional institution..."

That was the original intent. The House represented the people and was elected by the people. The Senate represented the respective states and was chosen by the states. Now the Senate serves no purpose. Either abolish it or return it to the states.

 

[CaughtInThe]

That was the original intent. The House represented the people and was elected by the people. The Senate represented the respective states and was chosen by the states. Now the Senate serves no purpose. Either abolish it or return it to the states.

which would be fine if we could trust the states (some gerrymandered like hell) to actually show integrity when selecting Senators. here's why it changed...



"...those in favor of popular elections for senators believed two primary problems were caused by the original provisions: legislative corruption and electoral deadlocks. There was a sense that senatorial elections were "bought and sold", changing hands for favors and sums of money rather than because of the competence of the candidate. Between 1857 and 1900, the Senate investigated three elections over corruption. In 1900, for example, William A. Clark had his election voided after the Senate concluded that he had bought votes in the Montana legislature."

"Electoral deadlocks were another issue. Because state legislatures were charged with deciding whom to appoint as senators, the system relied on their ability to agree. Some states could not, and thus delayed sending representatives to Congress; in a few cases, the system broke down to the point where states completely lacked representation in the Senate."

 

[jimbo]

which would be fine if we could trust the states (some gerrymandered like hell) to actually show integrity when selecting Senators. here's why it changed...



"...those in favor of popular elections for senators believed two primary problems were caused by the original provisions: legislative corruption and electoral deadlocks. There was a sense that senatorial elections were "bought and sold", changing hands for favors and sums of money rather than because of the competence of the candidate. Between 1857 and 1900, the Senate investigated three elections over corruption. In 1900, for example, William A. Clark had his election voided after the Senate concluded that he had bought votes in the Montana legislature."

"Electoral deadlocks were another issue. Because state legislatures were charged with deciding whom to appoint as senators, the system relied on their ability to agree. Some states could not, and thus delayed sending representatives to Congress; in a few cases, the system broke down to the point where states completely lacked representation in the Senate."

Then the Senate should have been abolished. Having dual bodies is redundant and serves no purpose.

The House, BTW is no less corrupt than the Senate.

 

[Variant]

Generally, I can agree with that. The House is for the People, the Senate is for the States. That is how it was supposed to be done. However, there were considerable problems with the State Legislatures seating Senators that led up to the 17th Amendment. And if you want to go back to State Legislature selection of Senators, we'd need some rules and oversight such that those issues could be addressed.

State legislatures can be gerrymandered and the states can not. He's upset that the Republican party can't have an even more unfair advantage in the Senate than they already do.

Partisan composition of state legislatures - Ballotpedia

 

[CaughtInThe]

Then the Senate should have been abolished. Having dual bodies is redundant and serves no purpose.

The House, BTW is no less corrupt than the Senate.

i have no problem with making things better. the 17th actually addressed an issue of massive corruption (people/politicians paying other State politicians to become/continue to be a politician).


i think we're just too far away from that corruption to appreciate why is was changed.

 

[PirateMk1]

So I guess it’s just coincidence that the system was set up to exclude Black people from making any.

Not exclusively.

 

[d0gbreath]

“Senators who don’t have to worry about short-term popularity can work instead on long-term challenges,” Sasse wrote."

Makes sense.

Here in NE Sasse is a shoe-in for reelection. His Dem opponent was caught up in a sexually innappriate text scandal and has refused to drop out so like it or not Ben Sasse is there to stay.

Is worrying about short-term popularity the reason for 452 bills on Mitch's desk?