Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[g5000]

That we give states with small populations the same number of Senators as states with large populations is enough pandering to the rural populations. No need to make it worse. Rural people are nothing special; they deserve no special treatment.

Perhaps you should read Federalist No. 62.


Let's do a thought experiment.

Imagine all the urban dwellers in American were concentrated in one state, which I shall call Eschaton. And let's say they make up 52% of the entire population of the country.

Without the 17th Amendment, that would mean 49 percent of the population would send 98 Republican Senators to Washington while the great state of Eschaton would send just 2.

That is some serious overweightage of rural voters!

But down in the humble House, thanks to districting based on population, there are 226 Democratic Representatives and 208 Republicans.

The 49 rural states would have a hard time screwing over the state of Eschaton, thanks to the Democratic majority in the House.

On the flip side, let's go with the popular vote, and send 52 Democrats and 48 Republicans to the Senate.

Now a single state could fuck over the other 49 since it controls both houses of Congress.

How is that fair?

 

[rightwinger]

That we give states with small populations the same number of Senators as states with large populations is enough pandering to the rural populations. No need to make it worse. Rural people are nothing special; they deserve no special treatment.

The purpose of a Senator is different than the purpose of a Representative. The senators represent the state's interests where the representative represent the constituent's interests. That's why each state has the same number.

No

They both represent the people

 

[Uncensored2008]

Repeal of the 17th will never happen. Mindless reactionaries will immediately claim you're trying to take away people's voting rights.

In my opinion, we should just abolish the U.S. Senate because it no longer serves the purpose it was created for. It was intended to represent the interest of the individual state government so that the federal government couldn't become too powerful and overbearing. The 17th Amendment did away with that protection so I see no purpose for the body to continue to exist if we aren't willing to roll back the clock.

While I agree that there is little chance of an amendment such as this passing, it would go a LONG way toward restoring the voice of the people in the federal government.

Having the state legislatures select Senators ensured that those Senators were loyal to the states. Currently the Senate is an imperial body, serving DC, generally against the interests of the states - this applies to both parties. After all, Senators are selected by national bodies, the DNC or RNC, respectively. I hate to give credit to Neuman on anything, but in this he is correct, popular elections tend to be a farce. Take Hillary, for example. Arkansas first lady Clinton is installed as a NY Senator - HUH? Well, the party decided to appoint her to the Senate, and the seat in Arkansas lacks sufficient power, plus there was too great a chance of defeat, so the party installed her in New York.

The people had no say over it, it was decided in back room deals, with the ONLY choice offered the public, that of Republican or democrat. Far let NY City does not allow Republicans to be elected, so Hillary was anointed.

So, who did Hillary serve? Sure the fuck not the people of New York, they didn't put her in power, the elite of the DNC did. Hillary served the national party alone.

IF the state legislature appointed Senators, no way in hell would Hillary have been the pick, it still would have been a democrat, but one beholden to the STATE, not to the imperial DNC.

To recap, Senators appointed by state legislators will be responsive to state issues, for this reason, repeal of the 17th Amendment is positive step toward restoring liberty to this nation.

 

[Avatar4321]

I would also add that the 17th amendment eliminated a major check for the states. Prior to the 17th amendment, if you wanted to buy a senator, you had to pay off off a bunch of state reps. Now, you just need to donate to his/her campaign. The point of the Senators was to represent the interests of the state governments. Not the individuals of the states. This was to act as a check on the special interests which would be prevelant in the House.

So many of you claim you are against special interests, restoring the Senate to the States would seriously weaken Special interests groups by making it more difficult for them to buy elections. If the Senators were representing the interests of the State government, we would see Corporate interests severely hindered in the Federal Government.

Yes it would take the vote for Senator away from the people. But considering they were never intended to have one and the Senate was designed to act as a check on the people, that's not a bad thing.

The reason we have a run away Federal Government is because we have disrupted the balance of power between the Federal government, the State government, and the people. Ironically, by trying to empower the people, the progressives empowered the Federal government and ended up weakening both the state governments and the people.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Kudos to G5000 for starting this thread.

(Can't believe I just wrote that....)

 

[Avatar4321]

That we give states with small populations the same number of Senators as states with large populations is enough pandering to the rural populations. No need to make it worse. Rural people are nothing special; they deserve no special treatment.

The purpose of a Senator is different than the purpose of a Representative. The senators represent the state's interests where the representative represent the constituent's interests. That's why each state has the same number.

No

They both represent the people

That's the problem. They aren't supposed to. That's why special interests influence both houses instead of just the House.

 

[g5000]

That we give states with small populations the same number of Senators as states with large populations is enough pandering to the rural populations. No need to make it worse. Rural people are nothing special; they deserve no special treatment.

The purpose of a Senator is different than the purpose of a Representative. The senators represent the state's interests where the representative represent the constituent's interests. That's why each state has the same number.

No

They both represent the people

The Founders clearly stated the Senate represents the states and the states' authority over the federal government. The 17th amendment greatly undermined that intent.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Which would be far more representative of where America actually is politically. How many Republican governors are there? How many State Houses are Republican led? How many Republicans are there in the US House compared to Democrats? The urban areas are the tail wagging the dog.

Why should urbanites be disenfranchised just because of where they live?

The same reason that rural folks should because of where they live.

In other words they wouldn't be disenfranchised.


Who do you think elected Senators before the 17th Amendment? Here's a hint, it was the state legislature. And who are the folks in state legislature? Elected officials from across the state, so in essence everyone in the State is represented in the state legislature. Therefore no one is disenfranchised.

Class dismissed!

 

[g5000]

Kudos to G5000 for starting this thread.

(Can't believe I just wrote that....)

Thank you.

 

[Avatar4321]

Kudos to G5000 for starting this thread.

(Can't believe I just wrote that....)

It's an excellent topic. Though it's quite an uphill battle.

 

[Avatar4321]

Class dismissed!

I think some people will be staying after class

 

[Defiant1]

I believe the America created by the founders ceased being America when the 17th was passed. We have struggled since then.

I still believe in the great experiment. The southern states should take leadership to create a new constitution, similar to the original. Any other states that want to participate are welcome. If the liberal states want to go off on their own, it should be allowed.

 

[kwc57]

That we give states with small populations the same number of Senators as states with large populations is enough pandering to the rural populations. No need to make it worse. Rural people are nothing special; they deserve no special treatment.

The purpose of a Senator is different than the purpose of a Representative. The senators represent the state's interests where the representative represent the constituent's interests. That's why each state has the same number.

No

They both represent the people

SMH! The fact that liberals do not understand our constitution explains a lot about why we are where we are.

For your edification. U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Legislative Process > Senate Legislative Process

 

[oldfart]

This means, on the Senate district level, rural states' votes continue to be more heavily weighted than urbanized states with the result that 27 state legislatures are Republican controlled, while only 17 state legislatures are Democratic controlled. The rest are split.

Consequently, the immediate result of repealing the 17th amendment would result in 54 GOP Senators, 34 Democratic Senators, with the rest being a tossup. The Republicans would gain a majority in the Senate.

I think you are missing a couple of points. First, Article V of the Constitution provides that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." Since Article V deals with the amendment process, this is the one remaining absolute prohibition in the Constitution, which cannot be removed even by amendment. This rules out a number of solutions, such as increasing the number of Senators for more populated states.

The problem is not the 17th Amendment, which deals with the manner of electing Senators, but with the equal allocation of Senators (two) to each state. It really doesn't matter for your argument whether these Senators are elected directly, by state legislators, or for that matter chosen by lot!

If there is a remedy, it would be for more populous states to decide to divide into multiple states increasing the number of states and thus Senators. I'm not sure this would accomplish much. Many of the larger states have a urban/rural divisions that would not change the results much. For example, if Chicago became a state separate from Illinois, it would select two Democratic Senators and downstate would select two Republican Senators. Currently there are one of each, so the number of Senators would increase while the balance would remain equal.

But what about a state like Texas? An argument can be made that four or five large cities in Texas could become separate states and that a majority of these would probably be Democratic (Austin for example). Since there are no Texas Democratic Senators today, any pickup would be a gain.

It's a fun game to play, but I just don't see how this kind of restructuring could have a major lasting impact on the balance of the Senate.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Another way for Republicans to circumvent the popular vote

They can no longer win the Senate based on popular election. But they have managed to lock up a majority of State Legislatures

Any wonder why they want to repeal the 17th amendment?

Yeah, Washington, Madison, Jefferson and all those other Republicans of that Old Dead White Man generation sure did not want to see a popular vote.

/sarc

I keep thinking you have reached the absolute depths of stupidity... until I see your next post.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of course it's just another conservative how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-conservatives scam.

Kind of like the lets give illegal aliens amnesty to buy their votes and in the meantime we won't require a "voter" to prove they are registered and qualified to vote so we can go ahead and get their votes now and if anyone questions it, we'll call them racist. That kind of scam?

Senators, elected by the people, will vote on any immigration bill that comes to a vote.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That we give states with small populations the same number of Senators as states with large populations is enough pandering to the rural populations. No need to make it worse. Rural people are nothing special; they deserve no special treatment.

The purpose of a Senator is different than the purpose of a Representative. The senators represent the state's interests where the representative represent the constituent's interests. That's why each state has the same number.

That's hardly a case for taking away an individual's right to vote for a Senator.

 

[kwc57]

of course it's just another conservative how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-conservatives scam.

kind of like the lets give illegal aliens amnesty to buy their votes and in the meantime we won't require a "voter" to prove they are registered and qualified to vote so we can go ahead and get their votes now and if anyone questions it, we'll call them racist. That kind of scam?

senators, elected by the people, will vote on any immigration bill that comes to a vote.

View attachment $untitled.bmp

 

[g5000]

This means, on the Senate district level, rural states' votes continue to be more heavily weighted than urbanized states with the result that 27 state legislatures are Republican controlled, while only 17 state legislatures are Democratic controlled. The rest are split.

Consequently, the immediate result of repealing the 17th amendment would result in 54 GOP Senators, 34 Democratic Senators, with the rest being a tossup. The Republicans would gain a majority in the Senate.

I think you are missing a couple of points. First, Article V of the Constitution provides that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." Since Article V deals with the amendment process, this is the one remaining absolute prohibition in the Constitution, which cannot be removed even by amendment. This rules out a number of solutions, such as increasing the number of Senators for more populated states.

The problem is not the 17th Amendment, which deals with the manner of electing Senators, but with the equal allocation of Senators (two) to each state. It really doesn't matter for your argument whether these Senators are elected directly, by state legislators, or for that matter chosen by lot!

If there is a remedy, it would be for more populous states to decide to divide into multiple states increasing the number of states and thus Senators. I'm not sure this would accomplish much. Many of the larger states have a urban/rural divisions that would not change the results much. For example, if Chicago became a state separate from Illinois, it would select two Democratic Senators and downstate would select two Republican Senators. Currently there are one of each, so the number of Senators would increase while the balance would remain equal.

But what about a state like Texas? An argument can be made that four or five large cities in Texas could become separate states and that a majority of these would probably be Democratic (Austin for example). Since there are no Texas Democratic Senators today, any pickup would be a gain.

It's a fun game to play, but I just don't see how this kind of restructuring could have a major lasting impact on the balance of the Senate.

Surely you can see how a Republican legislature would select a Republican to represent their state in the US Senate.

Since there are 27 Republican-controlled state legislatures at the moment, it is not a stretch to say they would send 54 Republicans to the Senate, which would be a completely different outcome than the current one.

This has nothing to do with denying a state's equal suffrage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So apparently all of you who support this change think that the people of Massachusetts would have been better served if they had never gotten the chance to elect Scott Brown...

...because he didn't stand a chance in hell of ever being elected by the MA legislature.

Why do you think that would have been better for the People of Massachusetts?