Seventeenth Amendment

[Unitedwestand13]

I'm not sure you're aware of it, but you just made the case for repeal. They'd be beholden to the states. A huge benefit of that would be a severe reduction in unfunded state mandates as there'd be someone in Congress with a vested interest to say no.

But the voters should have the final say, and if the state legislatures are completely dominated by one political party, then the senate becomes completely dominated by one party.

Besides, are you arguing that Jon Tester of Montana or sherrod brown of Ohio are not representing their states?

 

[rocket88]

I'm not sure you're aware of it, but you just made the case for repeal. They'd be beholden to the states. A huge benefit of that would be a severe reduction in unfunded state mandates as there'd be someone in Congress with a vested interest to say no.

They'd still be party guys, probably even more so than they are. They'd be beholden to the party because the party put them in office.

 

[rocket88]

I'm not sure you're aware of it, but you just made the case for repeal. They'd be beholden to the states. A huge benefit of that would be a severe reduction in unfunded state mandates as there'd be someone in Congress with a vested interest to say no.

Not to mention that the kind of deal making that got Blogojevich in trouble would only get worse.

 

[vesper]

I would be all for repealing the 17th in a heartbeat. I believe it has had great consequences in eroding Federalism.

 

[radcen]

But the voters should have the final say, and if the state legislatures are completely dominated by one political party, then the senate becomes completely dominated by one party.

Besides, are you arguing that Jon Tester of Montana or sherrod brown of Ohio are not representing their states?

1) If a state is that skewed, it'll be dominated regardless.

2) They represent the entities who vote them into office. A state appointed Senator has a vested interest in the internals affairs of state government. A popularly elected Senator does not.

 

[radcen]

They'd still be party guys, probably even more so than they are. They'd be beholden to the party because the party put them in office.

So, in that respect, nothing would change.

 

[radcen]

Not to mention that the kind of deal making that got Blogojevich in trouble would only get worse.

Not necessarily. It was done for over a century prior to passage of the 17th.

ETA: I'm not sure that Illinois is the best example for most of the rest of the country. :lol:

 

[Casca XV]

"Democrats conduct massive voter/election fraud." Evidence please.

Have you been living under a rock? Here is a Democrat operative explain how they have been doing it for at least 50 years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4XK8DGeWgU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i_MhwgLURg

 

[Ikari]

The state's interest and the state voter's interest should be one and the same. The state legislature is elected by those same voters, so your point is a distinction without a difference.

The desires of the People and the desires of State are not always the same. That's why we broke up Congress as we did. The House, which is for the People, and the Senate that was to be for the Many States.

 

[MTAtech]

Were you this upset when Barack H Obama won? Or Bill Clinton won? Or Jimmy Carter won? He was a farmer, by the way. That is exactly what our founding fathers wanted to make sure did not happen. That one or two states controlled the others. They were afraid of Virginia.

First, all of the above also won the popular vote. So, the results are neither ambiguous nor undemocratic.

Second, the Constitutional Convention compromise didn't anticipate that there would be such wide disparities between the populations of the different states. California has 39.25 million while Wyoming has 585,501 and they each have the same representation in the Senate (67 Californians:1 Wyomingite). According to the 1790 Census, Virginia was the most populous at 691,937 people (inc. 287,959 slaves.) Tennessee -- the least populous at 35,691 (inc. 3,417 slaves.)

What we have is Tyranny of the Minority.

Our Constitution has always had a small-state bias, but the effects have become more pronounced as the population discrepancy between the smallest states and the largest states has grown. “Given contemporary demography, a little bit less than 50 percent of the country lives in 40 of the 50 states,” Sanford Levinson, a constitutional law scholar at the University of Texas, told me. “Roughly half the country gets 80 percent of the votes in the Senate, and the other half of the country gets 20 percent.”

 

[Ikari]

First, all of the above also won the popular vote. So, the results are neither ambiguous nor undemocratic.

Second, the Constitutional Convention compromise didn't anticipate that there would be such wide disparities between the populations of the different states. California has 39.25 million while Wyoming has 585,501 and they each have the same representation in the Senate (67 Californians:1 Wyomingite). According to the 1790 Census, Virginia was the most populous at 691,937 people (inc. 287,959 slaves.) Tennessee -- the least populous at 35,691 (inc. 3,417 slaves.)

What we have is Tyranny of the Minority.

A State is a State, regardless of population. The idea of the Senate is that it represents the States, not the People. Thus each State gets equal representation. The House is for the People, and that is based upon population.

 

[Southern Dad]

First, all of the above also won the popular vote. So, the results are neither ambiguous nor undemocratic.

Second, the Constitutional Convention compromise didn't anticipate that there would be such wide disparities between the populations of the different states. California has 39.25 million while Wyoming has 585,501 and they each have the same representation in the Senate (67 Californians:1 Wyomingite). According to the 1790 Census, Virginia was the most populous at 691,937 people (inc. 287,959 slaves.) Tennessee -- the least populous at 35,691 (inc. 3,417 slaves.)

What we have is Tyranny of the Minority.

Our founding fathers gave us two ways to change the Constitution. Feel free to embrace whichever path you think you might have a success with.

 

[Visbek]

I do. Senators for the most part don't give a darn what the people of their want or don't want. They just fall in line with their political party. Straight party line voting. If these senators were appointed and responsible to their state legislatures, they would do a better job or representing their state than their political party. After all, it is the House that is suppose to represent the people, the senate the states.

lol

Yes, because state party legislatures are never partisan. There is no way a state legislature would pick a senator based on their political positions or adherence to a party line. That's unpossible!

 

[Perotista]

lol

Yes, because state party legislatures are never partisan. There is no way a state legislature would pick a senator based on their political positions or adherence to a party line. That's unpossible!

I agree, but most state legislatures are in line with the people of their state. That doesn't happen with the popular vote. Senators would be tied to the legislatures which appointed them. One could say, with a state's political party vs. a national one which we have now. It boils down to more local control.

 

[Southern Dad]

I agree, but most state legislatures are in line with the people of their state. That doesn't happen with the popular vote. Senators would be tied to the legislatures which appointed them. One could say, with a state's political party vs. a national one which we have now. It boils down to more local control.

I see, so you want the state's senators to both be from the same party? And for this to happen you want to take the voting away from the people? You do realize this will never happen.

 

[Perotista]

I see, so you want the state's senators to both be from the same party? And for this to happen you want to take the voting away from the people? You do realize this will never happen.

I know that. That wasn't the question. The question was: Would you like to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment?

The senate was originally designed to represent the states, the house the people. repealing the seventeenth would get the original intent back more in focus.

 

[Visbek]

I agree, but most state legislatures are in line with the people of their state.

*cough*

GERRYMANDERING

*cough*

Sorry dude, but no, state legislatures right now are out of whack with the "people of their state."

Even if they were more in line, a less democratic means for selecting senators does not magically make those officials more in touch with the will of the residents of the state. It does the opposite. Instead of being held accountable directly to their actual constituents, it turns their selection into a political game played in the state capitals.

Hard pass.

 

[Nickyjo]

Have you been living under a rock? Here is a Democrat operative explain how they have been doing it for at least 50 years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4XK8DGeWgU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i_MhwgLURg

So I watched the first video (second one too, but it was off topic a bit) and kept waiting to hear the fair and balanced FOX program present someone to present the other side of what the impeccable-and-unimpeachable-in-his-tactics O'Keefe presented regarding an official worried about burkas (does he worry when nuns vote?). Do you have the clip that presents the other side? Maybe FOX did a follow up story shortly thereafter, just to complete the picture of what surely is the biggest political story of our century.

Here's what you can do to convince me. Have O'Keefe write a story outlining all this. Have it peer reviewed, say by a responsible panel (one that might include Alan Jones, just for fun). 60 Minutes and the NYTimes will beat a path to his door. There's a Pulitzer Prize waiting. And we haven't even touched on the thousands bussed to NH from Mass, or illegal aliens, or the thousands of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey... (Oops, that was another Trump lie, another topic.)

I worked in a polling place. People come in tell you their name. If they are on the list, they get a ballot. If not, they cast a provisional one, which is checked later. True, this is California, which Trump lost by millions, so there must have been fraud. But I for one saw no buses pulling up.

But I am still waiting for several of the bussed voters to come forward with their stories. Guess we'll have to wait for Trump's commission, no doubt well-balanced, to come forward with their results to soothe his damaged ego.

 

[Harshaw]

No. Why would we want the 17th Amendment repealed? Do we want a nation ruled by a handful of states? California, New York, Texas, Florida, and a couple others would have all the say? States like Alaska, Wyoming, Delaware, New Hampshire are just screwed?

How? Each state has two Senators -- equal "say."

Are you confusing this with the Electoral College? The 17th Amendment doesn't have anything to do with that.

 

[blackjack50]

Do we want a nation ruled by farmers? The red states should have all the say in spite of having a minority of the votes? States like Vermont, California, and Washington are just screwed?

You can apply that logic both ways, and yours is definitely weaker.

No. Yours actually is. His point is that the small would have NO say at all. Yours is that the minority controls the nation even though that is objectively not true. We just came off of 8 years of democrat presidency. We need both systems to produce proper representation. States like California and New York do not have any business trying to determine the best interests of Wyoming.

 

[Cardinal]

No. Yours actually is. His point is that the small would have NO say at all. Yours is that the minority controls the nation even though that is objectively not true. We just came off of 8 years of democrat presidency. We need both systems to produce proper representation. States like California and New York do not have any business trying to determine the best interests of Wyoming.

But Wyoming has any business determining the best interests of California and New York in spite of being in the minority.

Interesting logic.

 

[radcen]

No. Yours actually is. His point is that the small would have NO say at all. Yours is that the minority controls the nation even though that is objectively not true. We just came off of 8 years of democrat presidency. We need both systems to produce proper representation. States like California and New York do not have any business trying to determine the best interests of Wyoming.

But in the House they already do, while in the Senate they don't. The Senate is equal representation per state. No one state has undue influence over another. In the House states are heavily weighted. Populous states have great collective influence while others have virtually none.

 

[Masterhawk]

No. Why would we want the 17th Amendment repealed? Do we want a nation ruled by a handful of states? California, New York, Texas, Florida, and a couple others would have all the say? States like Alaska, Wyoming, Delaware, New Hampshire are just screwed?

the 17th amendment allows for the direct election of senators, it did not create the senate

 

[Lord of Planar]

Do you favor an amendment to rescind the Seventeenth Amendment?

Absolutely.

The people vote for the House of representative, and don't need both groups. The senate was deigned as a toll for the states, not the people. The politics of the popular vote need to be removed from this branch again.

 

[Aberration]

It makes no sense to me why it was changed. The odd thing is, the very State legislatures that couldn’t properly seat their Senators were the ones who voted for the Amendment. The very problem I hear people argue of why we needed the 17th Amendment still exists. Corruption still exists. Bribery still exists.

Personally I think we are better suited to try term limits first. Along with changing our bribery and corruption laws. And also making the penalties far harder. I think political corruption, considering its influence and damage it can do, is close to treason.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk