Repeal the 17th Amendment!

[Peach]

As for beholding to voter, I would submit to you that a Senator that is elected by the voter owes more to the voter than say one wh is free to do as he or she pleases that was put there by a legislature and owes nothing to the citizens of the State.
Agreed, let voters decide, OTHER not elected officials.

 

[Navy1960]

How different do you think that would be if the legislator in question had to go back to his district and face his friends and neighbors, for supporting the appointment of a Senator who acted in such a brazenly callous manner?

With Senators elected in statewide races, you get none of that....Senators just campaign in the population centers and that's it.

I can't say much for other states but here in Arizona based on our recent history in the last 10 years not much. I submit to you that the reason most Senators sit in Washington to long or seem to is not because of unfairness so much as it is, we the voters tend to just look for the team jersey when voting and that sort of thing lends itself to candidates be it the Senate or House staying longer than they need too. As for beholding to voter, I would submit to you that a Senator that is elected by the voter owes more to the voter than say one wh is free to do as he or she pleases that was put there by a legislature and owes nothing to the citizens of the State. I do however agree with Madison's view of the situation and that is what the current "popular mood" is at the time. I would frankly submit to you that Americans popular mood at this point in time is along the lines of the 17th Amendment Justice Scalia's opinions not withstanding.

Why would a Senator be more beholden to any given voter in Yuma of Winslow, when he can just go campaign in Phoenix/Tucson, get re-re-re-elected and just tell the outstaters to shove it if they don't like it?

The same way they are for the voters in Phoenix and Tucson, they are not more beholding to any voter in one district over another, however they are in fact elected by voters regardless of location. While it's true a Senator does need to have a majority of votes to win, not all the votes he will get will come from large population centers. Let me give you an example, for the most part Phoenix has a large large segment of latino voters who mainly vote Democrat, so a John Kyl for instance, or John McCain in order to win the election would need a combination of statewide votes from all the areas outside Phoenix that mainly vote Repulican in order to win, after all in most races there is more than one candidate running for the office and that candidate is not always a lock for say Phoenix or Tucson.

 

[Oddball]

As for beholding to voter, I would submit to you that a Senator that is elected by the voter owes more to the voter than say one wh is free to do as he or she pleases that was put there by a legislature and owes nothing to the citizens of the State.
Agreed, let voters decide, OTHER not elected officials.

Yeah, right...As though Herb Kohl gives two shits about the people in Rhinelander and Hurley, when he can just go suck up to the freaks in Milwaukee/Madison and skate back in.

 

[Oddball]

I can't say much for other states but here in Arizona based on our recent history in the last 10 years not much. I submit to you that the reason most Senators sit in Washington to long or seem to is not because of unfairness so much as it is, we the voters tend to just look for the team jersey when voting and that sort of thing lends itself to candidates be it the Senate or House staying longer than they need too. As for beholding to voter, I would submit to you that a Senator that is elected by the voter owes more to the voter than say one wh is free to do as he or she pleases that was put there by a legislature and owes nothing to the citizens of the State. I do however agree with Madison's view of the situation and that is what the current "popular mood" is at the time. I would frankly submit to you that Americans popular mood at this point in time is along the lines of the 17th Amendment Justice Scalia's opinions not withstanding.

Why would a Senator be more beholden to any given voter in Yuma of Winslow, when he can just go campaign in Phoenix/Tucson, get re-re-re-elected and just tell the outstaters to shove it if they don't like it?

The same way they are for the voters in Phoenix and Tucson, they are not more beholding to any voter in one district over another, however they are in fact elected by voters regardless of location. While it's true a Senator does need to have a majority of votes to win, not all the votes he will get will come from large population centers. Let me give you an example, for the most part Phoenix has a large large segment of latino voters who mainly vote Democrat, so a John Kyl for instance, or John McCain in order to win the election would need a combination of statewide votes from all the areas outside Phoenix that mainly vote Repulican in order to win, after all in most races there is more than one candidate running for the office and that candidate is not always a lock for say Phoenix or Tucson.

Though not all the votes will come from the large population centers, the vast bulk of them do.

Like I said, a popular vote for the HoR and an electoral college model on a statewide basis for the Senate.

 

[Peach]

Why would a Senator be more beholden to any given voter in Yuma of Winslow, when he can just go campaign in Phoenix/Tucson, get re-re-re-elected and just tell the outstaters to shove it if they don't like it?

The same way they are for the voters in Phoenix and Tucson, they are not more beholding to any voter in one district over another, however they are in fact elected by voters regardless of location. While it's true a Senator does need to have a majority of votes to win, not all the votes he will get will come from large population centers. Let me give you an example, for the most part Phoenix has a large large segment of latino voters who mainly vote Democrat, so a John Kyl for instance, or John McCain in order to win the election would need a combination of statewide votes from all the areas outside Phoenix that mainly vote Repulican in order to win, after all in most races there is more than one candidate running for the office and that candidate is not always a lock for say Phoenix or Tucson.

Though not all the votes will come from the large population centers, the vast bulk of them do.

Like I said, a popular vote for the HoR and an electoral college model on a statewide basis for the Senate.

A party majority state legislature might pick uniformly PARTY LINE Senators. In Florida, we have ONE Republican, ONE Democrat, as the voters have chosen. (OK, LeMieux was picked by Jeb! but this November we get a CHOICE again. )

 

[Oddball]

The same way they are for the voters in Phoenix and Tucson, they are not more beholding to any voter in one district over another, however they are in fact elected by voters regardless of location. While it's true a Senator does need to have a majority of votes to win, not all the votes he will get will come from large population centers. Let me give you an example, for the most part Phoenix has a large large segment of latino voters who mainly vote Democrat, so a John Kyl for instance, or John McCain in order to win the election would need a combination of statewide votes from all the areas outside Phoenix that mainly vote Repulican in order to win, after all in most races there is more than one candidate running for the office and that candidate is not always a lock for say Phoenix or Tucson.

Though not all the votes will come from the large population centers, the vast bulk of them do.

Like I said, a popular vote for the HoR and an electoral college model on a statewide basis for the Senate.

A party majority state legislature might pick uniformly PARTY LINE Senators. In Florida, we have ONE Republican, ONE Democrat, as the voters have chosen. (OK, LeMieux was picked by Jeb! but this November we get a CHOICE again. )

Though that may happen in one state, it's no guarantee that it will happen in another.

With popularly elected Senators, we have national uniformity of indifference.

 

[Peach]

Though not all the votes will come from the large population centers, the vast bulk of them do.

Like I said, a popular vote for the HoR and an electoral college model on a statewide basis for the Senate.

A party majority state legislature might pick uniformly PARTY LINE Senators. In Florida, we have ONE Republican, ONE Democrat, as the voters have chosen. (OK, LeMieux was picked by Jeb! but this November we get a CHOICE again. )

Though that may happen in one state, it's no guarantee that it will happen in another.

With popularly elected Senators, we have national uniformity of indifference.

I don't believe that, and a Senator in the hands of OTHER elected representatives will encourage rampant cronyism. One Blago a century is TOO much.

 

[Oddball]

A party majority state legislature might pick uniformly PARTY LINE Senators. In Florida, we have ONE Republican, ONE Democrat, as the voters have chosen. (OK, LeMieux was picked by Jeb! but this November we get a CHOICE again. )

Though that may happen in one state, it's no guarantee that it will happen in another.

With popularly elected Senators, we have national uniformity of indifference.

I don't believe that, and a Senator in the hands of OTHER elected representatives will encourage rampant cronyism. One Blago a century is TOO much.

Isn't Blago in prison for something or another?...What was that again?...Can't put my finger on it.....

 

[Peach]

Though that may happen in one state, it's no guarantee that it will happen in another.

With popularly elected Senators, we have national uniformity of indifference.

I don't believe that, and a Senator in the hands of OTHER elected representatives will encourage rampant cronyism. One Blago a century is TOO much.

Isn't Blago in prison for something or another?...What was that again?...Can't put my finger on it.....

Yes, he got a list of convictions, taking corruption to new heights.

 

[Toro]

The law is timeless. That is why we repeal laws instead of choosing to ignore them, because somebody can always bring up an old law to use.

You are spot on about the founders and framers being aware of exactly what it was and wasn't that they were forming. They gave us the amendment process - a very difficult process.

You are correct in your observations of libertarian/right disconnects in their ideological arguments versus their politics or reality.

pretty good post

Thanks. I appreciate the sentiments.

What I mean about the law are the concepts in law changes as society evolves. Often this requires changes in the law but it sometimes manifests in rulings in common law or through jury nullification or through laws being overturned by courts. I would differentiate that and constitutional principles around which the law evolves or is interpreted, which, at least theoretically, do not evolve as much.

 

[Oddball]

I don't believe that, and a Senator in the hands of OTHER elected representatives will encourage rampant cronyism. One Blago a century is TOO much.

Isn't Blago in prison for something or another?...What was that again?...Can't put my finger on it.....

Yes, he got a list of convictions, taking corruption to new heights.

Well, there you have it...Selling seats would be a criminal act, subject to hard time.

In the meantime, you have lifers like Kennedy and Dodd taking K Street cronyism to new depths.

None of your objections have anything to do with the original reasoning behind why the Senate was set up to be populated the way it was...If anything, the same conditions exist now as those you claim to be objecting to as being problematic with appointed Senators.

 

[Toro]

Since it is generally those who who have the less (i.e. city dwellers) that try to vote themselves the resources of those who have more than they, it makes perfect sense for those who have more to lose to have a balanced say in the political arena.

Why do you assume that?

The biggest recipients of welfare in the country are farmers through farm subsidies, income supports, energy policy and tariffs. Farmers and landholders are no less venal and greedy than everyone else, and have proven to be more than willing to use the government as an income transfer mechanism for themselves at the expense of everyone else. Giving them even more power will almost certainly make it more likely that they will increase the amount they line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else.

 

[Peach]

Well, there you have it...Selling seats would be a criminal act, subject to hard time.

In the meantime, you have lifers like Kennedy and Dodd taking K Street cronyism to new depths.

None of your objections have anything to do with the original reasoning behind why the Senate was set up to be populated the way it was...If anything, the same conditions exist now as those you claim to be objecting to as being problematic with appointed Senators.

Easier to sell seats when only a few can make the decision. LET VOTERS DECIDE, campaign against "lifers" if you wish. Lugar has been around a long time also.

 

[Oddball]

Since it is generally those who who have the less (i.e. city dwellers) that try to vote themselves the resources of those who have more than they, it makes perfect sense for those who have more to lose to have a balanced say in the political arena.

Why do you assume that?

The biggest recipients of welfare in the country are farmers through farm subsidies, income supports, energy policy and tariffs. Farmers and landholders are no less venal and greedy than everyone else, and have proven to be more than willing to use the government as an income transfer mechanism for themselves at the expense of everyone else. Giving them even more power will almost certainly make it more likely that they will increase the amount they line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else.

I assume that because I can read maps.....BTW, most farm subsidies go to big corporate operations (i.e. ConAgra, Cargill, ADM).

 

[rightwinger]

Since it is generally those who who have the less (i.e. city dwellers) that try to vote themselves the resources of those who have more than they, it makes perfect sense for those who have more to lose to have a balanced say in the political arena.

One man....one vote

One of the founding principles of our country. The vote of some bum living in a cardboard box counts the same as a mega millionaires. What a country!

One man one vote is mobocracy...The kind where the looters and layabouts vote themselves the possessions of the industrious and productive.

But we already know that you like mob rule, so it's easy to understand your support for the moocher and the thug.

Yes!

I am a member of that mob we like to call "We the People"

 

[Peach]

One man....one vote

One of the founding principles of our country. The vote of some bum living in a cardboard box counts the same as a mega millionaires. What a country!

One man one vote is mobocracy...The kind where the looters and layabouts vote themselves the possessions of the industrious and productive.

But we already know that you like mob rule, so it's easy to understand your support for the moocher and the thug.

Yes!

I am a member of that mob we like to call "We the People"

Part of the reasons for the 17th were discord among state legislatures, vote buying, and accusations of fraud in voting. An unwise repeal of an Amendment giving power to citizens is not called for.

 

[Oddball]

One man....one vote

One of the founding principles of our country. The vote of some bum living in a cardboard box counts the same as a mega millionaires. What a country!

One man one vote is mobocracy...The kind where the looters and layabouts vote themselves the possessions of the industrious and productive.

But we already know that you like mob rule, so it's easy to understand your support for the moocher and the thug.

Yes!

I am a member of that mob we like to call "We the People"

The men who penned those words went to great lengths to separate and devolve powers as much as possible, rather than have a homogenous centralized mob rule....A Senate beholden to the state political bodies was part of this separation and devolvement.

But I already know that you don't give a shit anyways.

 

[Oddball]

One man one vote is mobocracy...The kind where the looters and layabouts vote themselves the possessions of the industrious and productive.

But we already know that you like mob rule, so it's easy to understand your support for the moocher and the thug.

Yes!

I am a member of that mob we like to call "We the People"

Part of the reasons for the 17th were discord among state legislatures, vote buying, and accusations of fraud in voting. An unwise repeal of an Amendment giving power to citizens is not called for.

That's the story as told by the progressive winners, who removed one of the checks and balances of the original republic....Yet we still have voter fraud and plenty of vote buying, though not by the same frauds and vote buyers.

The thinking person would in turn tend to not believe the alleged reasons for the 17th Amendment, if much the same conditions existed afterward as before.

 

[rightwinger]

One man one vote is mobocracy...The kind where the looters and layabouts vote themselves the possessions of the industrious and productive.

But we already know that you like mob rule, so it's easy to understand your support for the moocher and the thug.

Yes!

I am a member of that mob we like to call "We the People"

The men who penned those words went to great lengths to separate and devolve powers as much as possible, rather than have a homogenous centralized mob rule....A Senate beholden to the state political bodies was part of this separation and devolvement.

But I already know that you don't give a shit anyways.

No, I don't give a shit

I support a system where each citizen has an equal right to vote and the selection of Senators is taken away from corrupt, partisan legislators making backroom deals and given to.......We the People

 

[Dante]

Yes!

I am a member of that mob we like to call "We the People"

The men who penned those words went to great lengths to separate and devolve powers as much as possible, rather than have a homogenous centralized mob rule....A Senate beholden to the state political bodies was part of this separation and devolvement.

But I already know that you don't give a shit anyways.

No, I don't give a shit

I support a system where each citizen has an equal right to vote and the selection of Senators is taken away from corrupt, partisan legislators making backroom deals and given to.......We the People

tell us what you think?