&
☭proletarian☭
Guest
☭proletarian☭;2018988 said:ClarifyAs part of that we should repeal the 17th amendment. The state governments would then have much more power.
How is having the senators elected by the People instead of by legislators a bad thing?
Easy. By having a body in the federal govt that represents the interest of states it provides a natural check on the federal government because state and federal governments want CONTROL. Neither side wants to give it up so so a bill that threatens state sovriegnty will never make it through the Senate or not make it through the Senate easily.
Would not the People electing their representatives better ensure that those chosen represented the people of that State than having them selected by legislators who may not represent the masses? Is that not the point of a (representative) democratic form of governance?
I'm not seeing the problem. True, the legislature should ideally be chosen by the masses, but so too every member of the government. It seems to me that the new system helps prevent a small group from controlling the legislature in the States and, through that, the Senate. Is not a more direct means of choosing senators a better means of preventing such a thing?
Unless you're insisting the People are somehow not competent to choose senators, but that calls the entire concept of representative government into question.
Now if you are concerned that the people, through the direct vote, will not have any say in the federal government we can have another body in the federal government that represents them.
This body already exist and is called the house of representatives. They decide things that directly affect the people such as taxes and war while the Senate decides things that affect states such as treaties and supreme court appointees.
I'mma be honest. It's been a long time since I payed that much attention to the details. I thought both houses had to approve of most things?
Unless the Senate was supposed to be ruled by the few (wealthy) and the House representative of the masses (the proletariat), as with the House of Lords and House of Commons in England?
I can see a reason for that. but I don't recall such system of class division being intended in the US?