• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the states

Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the states

  • Yes

    Votes: 25 41.0%
  • No

    Votes: 33 54.1%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 3 4.9%

  • Total voters
    61

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,691
Reaction score
6,253
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

I cannot understand why people would want to give up the power to directly elect senators?
 

USViking

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
1,684
Reaction score
507
Location
Greensboro NC USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

I voted NO.

Popular election should be the default position.

Something else to consider is this: Republicans have gamed tiny state-wide
majorities or even minorities into unfairly disproportional electoral district
advantage in a majority of today's states. Subsequently the US Senate would
be majority Republican for the foreseeable future regardless of the wishes
of the electorate.

No doubt this board's sizable right wing contingent could get really creamy
and cummy over the thought of that, so expect a lot of anti-popular selection
votes to show up here.

Fortunately, the Republicans need 75% of the states to go along with any of
their constitutional amendment ****, and even gamesters of their ability ain't
gonna make that happen via that route.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

YES!.... we as a nation need to return to a mixed constitution of the founders, and a separation of power, between the people and the states, we need to move away from the evils of democracy of the last 100 years, and return to true republican government.

democracy is a very factious/special interest oriented and evil form of government which is why the founders hated it and created republican government which divides power and does not let everyone or group become to powerful.

federalist 47--The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny


e·lec·tive
[ih-lek-tiv] Show IPA
adjective
1.
pertaining to the principle of electing to an office, position, etc.
2.
chosen by election, as an official.
3.
bestowed by or derived from election, as an office.
4.
having the power or right of electing to office, as a body of persons.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,254
Reaction score
51,119
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

No. There is no good reason to do so, and it would only further isolates people from having power.
 

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
16,522
Reaction score
7,947
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

I cannot understand why people would want to give up the power to directly elect senators?
The original purpose of senators was to represent the STATE not the people. You already have a representative, why do you need another 2 where your power to remove or elect them is much further diluted hence they are not nearly accountable. Were as when the state elected them they were accountable to the legislative body of that state, and therefor even MORE accountable. The states no longer are represented directly as an entity as they were before. States have interests that differ from that of the populous at large hence why they need to be represented directly, as originally intended.
 

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,691
Reaction score
6,253
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

YES!.... we as a nation need to return to a mixed constitution of the founders, and a separation of power, between the people and the states, we need to move away from the evils of democracy of the last 100 years, and return to true republican government.

democracy is a very factious/special interest oriented and evil form of government which is why the founders hated it and created republican government which divides power and does not let everyone or group become to powerful.

federalist 47--The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny


e·lec·tive
[ih-lek-tiv] Show IPA
adjective
1.
pertaining to the principle of electing to an office, position, etc.
2.
chosen by election, as an official.
3.
bestowed by or derived from election, as an office.
4.
having the power or right of electing to office, as a body of persons.
Could the reason that the founders hated democracy was because it meant sharing power with the common people? It kind of gives the impression that the founding fathers were elitists.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

No. There is no good reason to do so, and it would only further isolates people from having power.

it stops the federal government to exceeding it powers under the constitution, and and taking away state powers.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,254
Reaction score
51,119
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

it stops the federal government to exceeding it powers under the constitution, and and taking away state powers.
It does nothing to the federal government, and takes away the power of the people who live in the states, ie the ones the state governments are supposed to serve.
 

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,691
Reaction score
6,253
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

The original purpose of senators was to represent the STATE not the people. You already have a representative, why do you need another 2 where your power to remove or elect them is much further diluted hence they are not nearly accountable. Were as when the state elected them they were accountable to the legislative body of that state, and therefor even MORE accountable. The states no longer are represented directly as an entity as they were before. States have interests that differ from that of the populous at large hence why they need to be represented directly, as originally intended.
Yeah I think the states lost the right to elect senators when it hand picked cronys that would cater to the state party bosses. Tammany hall is a good example.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,254
Reaction score
51,119
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

The original purpose of senators was to represent the STATE not the people. You already have a representative, why do you need another 2 where your power to remove or elect them is much further diluted hence they are not nearly accountable. Were as when the state elected them they were accountable to the legislative body of that state, and therefor even MORE accountable. The states no longer are represented directly as an entity as they were before. States have interests that differ from that of the populous at large hence why they need to be represented directly, as originally intended.
The STATE is the people. That is something that should never be forgotten.
 

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
16,522
Reaction score
7,947
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

The STATE is the people. That is something that should never be forgotten.
True, however the State as an entity is separate and has separate interests many of which deal with interworking's of government between themselves, something important to the state but of very little interest to most people.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Could the reason that the founders hated democracy was because it meant sharing power with the common people? It kind of gives the impression that the founding fathers were elitists.
no that is not the reason, the founders did not have tv, radio or the internet, ...........but they read books.

Madison months before the constitutional convention wrote to jefferson and asked him to send him books on governments of the world.

Madison is Reading these books saw why governments fail, democracies are evil, so he sought to create a government where no one or few on many could have total power, ..."becuase absolute power corrupts absolute"

if you give 1 person total power he will be tyrannical ,its the same with a few, and if you give all total power to the all the people they will also be corrupt, becuase the majority will control the minority and the founders knew this.

so they created a mixed constitution- federalist 40, which separated power, the people have direct power in the house, and indirect power in the senate.

the senate is to be a voice of the states and their power under federalism.

our constitution gives us federalism, which separates power between states and the federal government, and limits the federal government to only 18 duties, and all other powers are state powers, today when government takes powers of states away by creating new laws the states have no power to stop them.

however before the 17th ,every state had a say in government, the senate, and that power of the states limited the federal government, and prevented government from creasing state powers.

democracy... which america has moved towards in the last 100 years with the 17th is evil,

we as a people bitch and moan and complain our government is bought and paid for...yes it is!...why because democracy breeds faction or special interest, ...republican government of the founders limits faction /special interest so it cannot control our government or the people.

but people in america have never lived under true republican government because it ended with the 17th amendment and it needs to me stored, and our nations power needs to be returned to the people and the states.
 
Last edited:

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,926
Reaction score
37,998
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Yes. At the time the 17th amendment was passed there was no federal meddling in state election procedures/laws. As ever more power is taken from the state and transfered to the federal gov't, the large cities now have obtained even more power than could be imagined at the time the 17th amendment was considered and passed. Good luck with getting that toothpaste back into the tube now though. For example, there are more red states than blue states yet the Democratic party controls the U.S. Senate. ;)
 

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
16,522
Reaction score
7,947
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Yeah I think the states lost the right to elect senators when it hand picked cronys that would cater to the state party bosses. Tammany hall is a good example.
Very true, however my original statement still stands.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

It does nothing to the federal government, and takes away the power of the people who live in the states, ie the ones the state governments are supposed to serve.
you really need to read the founding documents and the federalist papers...
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

The Federalist No. 40
On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
New York Packet
Friday, January 18, 1788
[James Madison]
To the People of the State of New York:

THE second point to be examined is, whether the convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.

Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.
 

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,691
Reaction score
6,253
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

no that is not the reason, the founders did not have tv, radio or the internet, ...........but they read books.

Madison months before the constitutional convention wrote to jefferson and asked him to send me books on governments of the world.

Madison is Reading these books saw why governments fail, democracies are evil, so he sought to create a government where no one or few on many could have total power, ..."becuase absolute power corrupts absolute"

if you give 1 person total power he will be tyrannical ,its the same with a few, and if you give all total power to the all the people they will also be corrupt, becuase the majority will control the minority and the founders knew this.

so they created a mixed constitution- federalist 40, which separated power, the people have direct power in the house, and indirect power in the senate.

the senate is to be a voice of the states and their power under federalism.

our constitution gives us federalism, which separates power between states and the federal government, and limits the federal government to only 18 duties, and all other powers are state powers, today when government takes powers of a states away by creating new laws the states have no power to stop them.

however before the 17th ,every state had a say in government, the senate, and that power of the states limited the federal government, and prevented government from creasing state powers.

democracy... which america has moved towards in the last 100 years with the 17th is evil,

we as a people bitch and moan and complain our government is bought and paid for...yes it is!...why because democracy breeds faction or special interest, ...republican government of the founders limits faction /special interest so it cannot control our government or the people.

but people in america have never lived under true republican government because it ended with the 17th amendment and it needs to me stored, and our nations power needs to be returned to the people and the states.
How is removing the power to directly elect senators benefit the people?
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Cronyism was a problem, yes, but it also provided a balance of power that for the most part served us well.

Would the balance of the 19th century still hold in the 21st century, if the 17th Amendment had never passed? That's an interesting question.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

How is removing the power to directly elect senators benefit the people?
because it puts power back into the hands of state legislatures who are elected by the people.

with that state power, the federal government cannot mandate or create laws, which take away state powers in the first place, this keeps the federal government limited as the founders wanted.

this is why the u.s. constitution was created as a mixed constitution, to divide power between the people and the states....the house is for the people, and the senate is for the states, this way no one group has all the power and cannot become tyrannical and violate the constitution.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,757
Reaction score
17,164
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Could the reason that the founders hated democracy was because it meant sharing power with the common people? It kind of gives the impression that the founding fathers were elitists.
Many were elitists, but that's not a bad thing.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

because it puts power back into the hands of state legislatures who are elected by the people.

with that state power, the federal government cannot mandate or create laws, which take away state powers in the first place, this keeps the federal government limited as the founders wanted.

this is why the u.s. constitution was created as a mixed constitution, to divide power between the people and the states....the house is for the people, and the senate is for the states, this way no one group has all the power and cannot become tyrannical and violate the constitution.
Good point in paragraph 2.

And considering that the people have pretty much wholly abdicated their responsibility... i.e.: 10% Congressional approval rating and 90% re-election rate... Congress knows we won't do anything, so they have indeed become tyrannical.
 

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,691
Reaction score
6,253
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

because it puts power back into the hands of state legislatures who are elected by the people.

with that state power, the federal government cannot mandate or create laws, which take away state powers in the first place, this keeps the federal government limited as the founders wanted.

this is why the u.s. constitution was created as a mixed constitution, to divide power between the people and the states....the house is for the people, and the senate is for the states, this way no one group has all the power and cannot become tyrannical and violate the constitution.
You are trying to undo 100 years of senators being elected by the people of state, not Some state party boss.
 

AlabamaPaul

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
8,834
Reaction score
2,812
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

The simple answer is yes...
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

You are trying to undo 100 years of senators being elected by the people of state, not Some state party boss.
you will find if you look at history after the 17th amendment you get long term senators, like Robert Byrd.

before the 17th senators served short terms becuase legislatures changed them frequently.

do you not question why our founders created our constitution as a mixed one, and the separation of powers.

republican government divides power so special interest/ faction cannot rule our government

democracy concentrates power, and this allows special interest/ faction to grow and control our government.

i will give you federalist papers quotes to show you what i mean.

federalist 10 from Madison, where is states democratic government is very factious and the founders created republican government which is less factious.

"The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter"


federalist 47 from Madison, where he states if you give a person, few or group, or all the power to the people total power they will become tyrannical......

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny"

here is Madison again in federalist 63, saying that the senate is a voice of the states to stop any collectivist activity of the people, becuase if you give people all the power they will become collective by nature and be tyrannical.

"The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former"
 
Top Bottom