Excellent Call, Ben

[Billy_Kinetta]

But you'll need significant majorities all around to get it through.

Ben Sasse Calls for Repealing 17th Amendment

Ben Sasse Calls for Repealing 17th Amendment, Eliminating Popular-Vote Senate Elections

 

[RodISHI]

I am glad he is also looking at the housing aspect of where they stay when in DC. That alone would cut out a lot of bs.

 

[Coyote]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

 

[22lcidw]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

In most states, the LOCAL State Representative and State Senator will be held to being responsible for who they would push for federal senator. In affect, giving the voter of those two positions more power.

 

[Coyote]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

 

[Votto]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Why do you think that the Founding Fathers set it up that way?

Naturally, democrats abhor Republics and want pure democracy at any price, because they are masters at propaganda for the clueless masses, by taking over education, the media, etc. and always dangling free stuff

Have you ever studied both chambers of Congress on how they were set up?. The House was elected directly by the people, who served only 2 terms and the numbers of them based upon population, as where the Senate has ONLY 2 people and serve 6 years. Now who was given more power? Was it not the Senate? So the Founding Fathers held a higher regard for those in the state legislature, in terms of what is really gone on verse the average voter who is clueless, by letting them appoint the most powerful chamber of Congress. The Founding Fathers were horrified at a pure democracy and mob rule, which means only one thing, they had a little thing called common sense, which is probably a racist term by now.

But as always, the Left abhors this sort of thinking, which is the same reason they want rid of the Electoral College. And if the Left gets their way with the Electoral College like they did with the Senate, then the states of New York and California will always decide who sits in the Oval Office for the other 48 states due to their larger population levels. Gee, I wonder which party would ALWAYS win?

As for the Senate, the moment they let them be elected directly was the moment having two different chambers became absurd.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

In many ways, that is the problem.

 

[Coyote]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

In many ways, that is the problem.

I'm not sure it is a "problem" per se. Each era comes with problems, and we seem to think the past is some sort of golden age. We have so much to deal with now that drives extreme partisanship and that won't go away. We've been slowly and steadily heading into a kleptocracy (imo) and corruption at the level of state legislatures is much more likely than at that national level. Maybe I'm just to pessimistic.

 

[kaz]

But you'll need significant majorities all around to get it through.

Ben Sasse Calls for Repealing 17th Amendment

Ben Sasse Calls for Repealing 17th Amendment, Eliminating Popular-Vote Senate Elections

State legislatures should be required to appoint Senators. Direct vote just eliminates State rights. It should be viewed as a sacrifice to leave a State legislature to the Federal legislature. A step DOWN in power, not up.

Direct elections of senators is worse than the income tax. It's that bad

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

In many ways, that is the problem.

I'm not sure it is a "problem" per se. Each era comes with problems, and we seem to think the past is some sort of golden age. We have so much to deal with now that drives extreme partisanship and that won't go away. We've been slowly and steadily heading into a kleptocracy (imo) and corruption at the level of state legislatures is much more likely than at that national level. Maybe I'm just to pessimistic.

Like all of human history, it's a Game of Thrones. The Founders created a model of government that surpassed all others in terms of individual liberty, and as is always the case, people both benevolent and malevolent started fucking with it, in most cases to gain some personal advantage and/or power over others.

 

[progressive hunter]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

 

[kaz]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

 

[progressive hunter]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

 

[kaz]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

I agree and I'm in. I'm just expressing doubt that State rights will happen again. Democrats will fight to the death to prevent it. Their whole justification for power is mob rule and State rights are an anathema to mob rule

 

[norwegen]

A legislature that is shaped by national concerns rather than parochial concerns would go far in restoring the Congress. The people have no business in the business of treaty-making.

The appointment of senators has "vastly the advantage of elections by the people in their collective capacity, where the activity of party zeal, taking the advantage of the supineness, the ignorance, and the hopes and fears of the unwary and interested." (Publius)

 

[progressive hunter]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

I agree and I'm in. I'm just expressing doubt that State rights will happen again. Democrats will fight to the death to prevent it. Their whole justification for power is mob rule and State rights are an anathema to mob rule

they seem to call for states rights when a republican is president,,,

 

[norwegen]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

What would be interesting is if states chose their electors for the electoral college not by popular will, as in the old days.

Getting government out of the hands of the ignorant masses would do wonders for this country.

The people had already had a voice in their state houses and in the national house, but with the rise of the Democratic Party and its intent to seduce with popular flattery, the ignorant masses grew into a class of malcontents.

 

[kaz]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

I agree and I'm in. I'm just expressing doubt that State rights will happen again. Democrats will fight to the death to prevent it. Their whole justification for power is mob rule and State rights are an anathema to mob rule

they seem to call for states rights when a republican is president,,,

Yes. Democrats call for State rights when they want to override legitimate Constitutional Federal powers, like immigration. Then they ignore State rights for things the Federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do. It's an f'd up party

 

[progressive hunter]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

I agree and I'm in. I'm just expressing doubt that State rights will happen again. Democrats will fight to the death to prevent it. Their whole justification for power is mob rule and State rights are an anathema to mob rule

they seem to call for states rights when a republican is president,,,

Yes. Democrats call for State rights when they want to override legitimate Constitutional Federal powers, like immigration. Then they ignore State rights for things the Federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do. It's an f'd up party

someday the people will wake up and see its the partys themselves that are the problem dividing us,,,