Ted Kennedy dies.

[paperview]

and who punts

Eloquently stated. Kudos.

Some things never change.

LOL. I love that emoticon.

Fits perfectly.

 

[bodecea]

so you are lobbying for not having the ability to vote for your senators?

or are you a member of the state legislature of florida and want to get to appoint who YOU want without input from the constituents?

you( as a represenitive) would answer to those people for who you appoint
a direct line of responsibility

ok, you still cut the electorate out of this process. i thought everyone was railing against the evil corrupt politicians, or are the state legislators somehow different?

Eloquently stated. Kudos.

 

[DiveCon]

so you are lobbying for not having the ability to vote for your senators?

or are you a member of the state legislature of florida and want to get to appoint who YOU want without input from the constituents?

you( as a represenitive) would answer to those people for who you appoint
a direct line of responsibility

ok, you still cut the electorate out of this process. i thought everyone was railing against the evil corrupt politicians, or are the state legislators somehow different?

no you dont
you elect those in the legislature
it would still be a line of responsibility

 

[The T]

so you are lobbying for not having the ability to vote for your senators?

or are you a member of the state legislature of florida and want to get to appoint who YOU want without input from the constituents?

you( as a represenitive) would answer to those people for who you appoint
a direct line of responsibility

ok, you still cut the electorate out of this process. i thought everyone was railing against the evil corrupt politicians, or are the state legislators somehow different?

Does it matter in the current climate? I would submit a resounding *NO*. But then the original system of House and Senate, was designed to parse the interest of the State (Senate), and the House (People), and why there is such a thing as Reconciliation between the two Houses to ultimately Reflect the WILL of the people AND the STATE.

It was designed to be difficult on PURPOSE, to ensure the correct course of the Republic, and the WILL of the people as a whole.

What we have now reflects the will of the Federal Government, and the 17th amendment is a direct result, or bastardization, of the intent of choosing Representitives, v Senators.

 

[DiveCon]

yes, since they are supposed to be representing the state government
the poeple have their representation in the house
also it puts a direct line of responsibility to the state office holders

Ding! Correct! Select! We have a *WINNER*!! Good form, Dive! You dared to tread where Libs dared NOT.

partisan bub, why can americans vote for the president? why don't kill the xvii amendment, and then let congress appoint a president? would be even better, right? direct line of responsibility.

they dont
they vote for electoral college members who then elect the POTUS
or have you forgotten that

 

[The T]

you( as a represenitive) would answer to those people for who you appoint
a direct line of responsibility

ok, you still cut the electorate out of this process. i thought everyone was railing against the evil corrupt politicians, or are the state legislators somehow different?

Eloquently stated. Kudos.

But sadly WRONG. Educate yourself.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1458874-post224.html

 

[DiveCon]

you( as a represenitive) would answer to those people for who you appoint
a direct line of responsibility

ok, you still cut the electorate out of this process. i thought everyone was railing against the evil corrupt politicians, or are the state legislators somehow different?

Does it matter in the current climate? I would submit a resounding *NO*. But then the original system of House and Senate, was designed to parse the interest of the State (Senate), and the House (People), and why there is such a thing as Reconciliation between the two Houses to ultimately Reflect the WILL of the people AND the STATE.

It was designed to be difficult on PURPOSE, to ensure the correct course of the Republic, and the WILL of the people as a whole.

What we have now reflects the will of the Federal Government, and the 17th amendment is a direct result, or bastardization, of the intent of choosing Representitives, v Senators.

exactly, if we have direct election of the senate, might as well merge them into the house

 

[DiveCon]

you( as a represenitive) would answer to those people for who you appoint
a direct line of responsibility

ok, you still cut the electorate out of this process. i thought everyone was railing against the evil corrupt politicians, or are the state legislators somehow different?

Eloquently stated. Kudos.

 

[The T]

Ding! Correct! Select! We have a *WINNER*!! Good form, Dive! You dared to tread where Libs dared NOT.

partisan bub, why can americans vote for the president? why don't kill the xvii amendment, and then let congress appoint a president? would be even better, right? direct line of responsibility.

they dont
they vote for electoral college members who then elect the POTUS
or have you forgotten that

But then there are those that think the EC should be abolished outright. How dangerous is that?

And if you think about it? It reflects on how dangerous a True Democracy really is.

 

[DiveCon]

It's been around for almost a hundred years, and it's here to stay.

NO ONE is going to agree to give up the right to directly elect senators. Ain't gonna happen.

Bet a million dollars on it.

Anyone want to take the bet?

WILL it happen? not likely
but it SHOULD
too bad your mind isnt open enough to understand WHY

 

[DiveCon]

partisan bub, why can americans vote for the president? why don't kill the xvii amendment, and then let congress appoint a president? would be even better, right? direct line of responsibility.

they dont
they vote for electoral college members who then elect the POTUS
or have you forgotten that

But then there are those that think the EC should be abolished outright. How dangerous is that?

And if you think about it? It reflects on how dangerous a True Democracy really is.

and i bet they are these people as well

 

[L.K.Eder]

Ding! Correct! Select! We have a *WINNER*!! Good form, Dive! You dared to tread where Libs dared NOT.

partisan bub, why can americans vote for the president? why don't kill the xvii amendment, and then let congress appoint a president? would be even better, right? direct line of responsibility.

they dont
they vote for electoral college members who then elect the POTUS
or have you forgotten that

kind of. the electoral college is a strange beast. and i don't like your winner takes it all election rules.

and your senate kind of sucks too. great compromise, lol. wyoming, california.

i like our (german) election system, and still there is a lot of clamoring for MORE direct democracy, so i truly cannot understand this "let's repeal the XVII amendment" (apart from the governor's ability to appoint in case of vacancy, see blagojevich, haha). especially with the health care reform talk everywhere, everyone wants to get their voices heard, i guess a lot would like a public referendum (see california, gay marriage stuff).
but in this case you want to disenfranchise yourself and hand over the power to the authoritay!

i don't get it.

 

[The T]

ok, you still cut the electorate out of this process. i thought everyone was railing against the evil corrupt politicians, or are the state legislators somehow different?

Does it matter in the current climate? I would submit a resounding *NO*. But then the original system of House and Senate, was designed to parse the interest of the State (Senate), and the House (People), and why there is such a thing as Reconciliation between the two Houses to ultimately Reflect the WILL of the people AND the STATE.

It was designed to be difficult on PURPOSE, to ensure the correct course of the Republic, and the WILL of the people as a whole.

What we have now reflects the will of the Federal Government, and the 17th amendment is a direct result, or bastardization, of the intent of choosing Representitives, v Senators.

exactly, if we have direct election of the senate, might as well merge them into the house

Exactly. It's an affront to the original intent, and why I stated the 17th Amendment was a start, and a mistake, and why we are in the pickle we are now, and well our way to MOB RULE...and this didn't happen overnight...but piecemeal, and by DESIGN, by those that crafted it.

It has been a long hard march for the Statists, and they aren't gonna give up.

 

[The T]

they dont
they vote for electoral college members who then elect the POTUS
or have you forgotten that

But then there are those that think the EC should be abolished outright. How dangerous is that?

And if you think about it? It reflects on how dangerous a True Democracy really is.

and i bet they are these people as well

Those that defend the Likes of Kennedy, reflect it well.

 

[paperview]

I'd like to take a moment to diverge from the topic and pay my condolences to the family, friends and all who loved and will miss
the late Senator Kennedy. Godspeed Ted.



<just in case y'all forgot the title of this thread>

 

[bodecea]

ok, you still cut the electorate out of this process. i thought everyone was railing against the evil corrupt politicians, or are the state legislators somehow different?

Eloquently stated. Kudos.

Glad to have been of some help in the "let me think of something clever" department.

 

[bodecea]

I'd like to take a moment to diverge from the topic and pay my condolences to the family, friends and all who loved and will miss
the late Senator Kennedy. Godspeed Ted.



<just in case y'all forgot the title of this thread>

Eloquently stated. Kudos.

 

[paperview]

Does it matter in the current climate? I would submit a resounding *NO*. But then the original system of House and Senate, was designed to parse the interest of the State (Senate), and the House (People), and why there is such a thing as Reconciliation between the two Houses to ultimately Reflect the WILL of the people AND the STATE.

It was designed to be difficult on PURPOSE, to ensure the correct course of the Republic, and the WILL of the people as a whole.

What we have now reflects the will of the Federal Government, and the 17th amendment is a direct result, or bastardization, of the intent of choosing Representitives, v Senators.

exactly, if we have direct election of the senate, might as well merge them into the house

Exactly. It's an affront to the original intent, and why I stated the 17th Amendment was a start, and a mistake, and why we are in the pickle we are now, and well our way to MOB RULE...and this didn't happen overnight...but piecemeal, and by DESIGN, by those that crafted it.

It has been a long hard march for the Statists, and they aren't gonna give up.

Is the 19th Amendment an affront to the original intent?

 

[The T]

Eloquently stated. Kudos.

Glad to have been of some help in the "let me think of something clever" department.

And you failed the quiz I gave you. YOU don't even know your own Government, do you?

But I give you due credit where it is deserved. Well DONE.

 

[L.K.Eder]

i heard statists really really liked direct democracy (=mob rule), that is why THEY cooked up the XVII amendment, right The T?