Tea Partiers want to repeal the 17th amendment

[paperview]

Currently all senators are slaves to special interests based on who got them elected.

And you think this will be different when it's not the people who elect them, but the state legislatures.

Uhhh-huuhhhh.

What kind of world do you live in?

 

[American Horse]

And how the hell do you think that will be different if you take away the right of the people to vote for senators?

(Don't get angry - this is just a forum of ideas; we don't change anything here)

Going back to my earlier post where I posited that: " What would be interesting to tabulate is the length of service in the Senate members before and after, and then relative wealth of the senators compared to the average citizen. I don't think the results would be very positive."

Tabulating the length of service across the tier of states from Pensylvania to Illinois this is what I found for length of service pre-17th Amendment versus post-17th Amendment (effective 1913)
PA --- went from average 2.75 years to 5.10 years an increase of 85% (5-vacancies);
OH --- went from average 2.92 years to 4.04 years; an increase of 38% (no vacancies)
IN --- went from average 3.2 years to 5.81 years; an increase of 82% (no vacancies)
IL --- 3.17 years to 4.40 years; an average increase of 39% (no vacancies)

Where the heck are you getting these figures from?
What is the time frame you are referring to? Since our first elections to now?

How can the "average years" for senator from PA, for example, be 2.75 years?

My method was to go to each states list of us senators and tally them from the first senatorial office holder. Pa's was first in 1789, I counted office holders in each class, divided the number of years (PA) between 1789 and 1913. I made the same calculation for officeholders from 1913 to 2010. I did the same for each of the other states.

For your question about 2.75 years, because there are two classes (PA has Class I and III) and I counted all officeholders in both classes, counting vacancies (only PA of the 4 had vacancies), combined them to get an average for the purpose of getting a comparison. Take out the vacancy periods and PA becomes 124 years/39 Different named senators = 3.18 years each, and still a 60% increase.

 

[paperview]

(Don't get angry - this is just a forum of ideas; we don't change anything here)

Going back to my earlier post where I posited that: " What would be interesting to tabulate is the length of service in the Senate members before and after, and then relative wealth of the senators compared to the average citizen. I don't think the results would be very positive."

Tabulating the length of service across the tier of states from Pensylvania to Illinois this is what I found for length of service pre-17th Amendment versus post-17th Amendment (effective 1913)
PA --- went from average 2.75 years to 5.10 years an increase of 85% (5-vacancies);
OH --- went from average 2.92 years to 4.04 years; an increase of 38% (no vacancies)
IN --- went from average 3.2 years to 5.81 years; an increase of 82% (no vacancies)
IL --- 3.17 years to 4.40 years; an average increase of 39% (no vacancies)

Where the heck are you getting these figures from?
What is the time frame you are referring to? Since our first elections to now?

How can the "average years" for senator from PA, for example, be 2.75 years?

My method was to go to each states list of us senators and tally them from the first senatorial office holder. Pa's was first in 1789, I counted office holders in each class, divided the number of years (PA) between 1789 and 1913. I made the same calculation for officeholders from 1913 to 2010. I did the same for each of the other states.

For your question about 2.75 years, because there are two classes (PA has Class I and III) and I counted all officeholders in both classes, counting vacancies (only PA of the 4 had vacancies), combined them to get an average for the purpose of getting a comparison. Take out the vacancy periods and PA becomes 124 years/39 Different named senators = 3.18 years each, and still a 60% increase.

Huh?

U.S. Senate: Senators Home > State Information > Pennsylvania

I still don't see how you arrive at those figures.

 

[American Horse]

Where the heck are you getting these figures from?
What is the time frame you are referring to? Since our first elections to now?

How can the "average years" for senator from PA, for example, be 2.75 years?

My method was to go to each states list of us senators and tally them from the first senatorial office holder. Pa's was first in 1789, I counted office holders in each class, divided the number of years (PA) between 1789 and 1913. I made the same calculation for officeholders from 1913 to 2010. I did the same for each of the other states.

For your question about 2.75 years, because there are two classes (PA has Class I and III) and I counted all officeholders in both classes, counting vacancies (only PA of the 4 had vacancies), combined them to get an average for the purpose of getting a comparison. Take out the vacancy periods and PA becomes 124 years/39 Different named senators = 3.18 years each, and still a 60% increase.

Huh?

U.S. Senate: Senators Home > State Information > Pennsylvania

I still don't see how you arrive at those figures.

Very well, from your link there were a total in both classes of 38 (I previously counted 39 from a different link) office holding senators between 1789 and 1913 which is 124 years.
124 years divided by 38 senators equals an average for all 38 of 3.26 years each officeholder

and

There were 19 office holding senators between 1913 and 2010 which is 97 years.
97 years divided by 19 senators equals an average for all 19 of 5.10 years each officeholder

and

An average of 5.1 years each divided by 3.26 years each each equals an increase of 56.4%from pre-17th amendment to post-17th amendment. In both periods a senator began office before 1913 and I counted them as pre-17th amendment.

My purpose was to show that among some typical states across a middle tier of states that terms of office for office holders would become longer. You can make your own judgements whether or not that is a positive outcome; I tend to think not.

And if we could do the same for relative wealth as compared to their average consituencies, I for one, have no doubt whatsoever (except for those states which have leaned towards electing a majority of Republicans) of that outcome either.

 

[paperview]

While it does appear, having complied one Tier of Senators from one state (which may not reflect the whole) - in this instance, taking the 1st Tier from Pennsylvania, the most recent senators have been elected longer. However, with the many resignations, and some deaths, it's hard to see if it is a true measure that is meaningful of anything. It's quite likely they have, in whole, served longer post 17th.

William Maclay (ANTI-ADMIN) -He received a two-year term instead of the usual six-year term for senators after he lost a lottery with the other Pennsylvania senator, Robert Morris.

James Ross (PRO-ADMIN,F) 9 years.
Samuel Maclay (R) 6 years
Michael Leib (R) 5 years, resigned, having been appointed postmaster of Philadelphia;
Jonathan Roberts (R) 6 years
William Findlay (R,JR,J) 6 years (elected to fill the vacancy 1821, caused by the failure of the legislature to elect.)
Isaac D. Barnard (J) Resigned after 3 years due to ill health.
George M. Dallas (J) Completed the term left open by Barnard.
Samuel McKean (J,D) 6 years
Daniel Sturgeon (D) 11 years
Richard Brodhead (D) 6 years
Simon Cameron (R) 3 years. Resigned from the Senate to become Lincoln's Secreetary of War. He again served in the Senate, eventually being succeeded by his son, J. Donald Cameron, and only resigned from Senate upon confirmation that his son would succeed him, who then was senator for 20 years.

David Wilmot (R) 2 years - elected as a Republican to the United States Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Simon Cameron
Charles R. Buckalew (D) 6 years
John Scott (R) 6 years
William A. Wallace (D) 6 years
John I. Mitchell (R) 6 years
Matthew S. Quay (R) 16 years
Philander C. Knox (R) 5 years - appointed by Governor to fill the unexpired term of Quay, re-elected to the Senate for the full term (to 1909).
George T. Oliver (R) 9 years
Philander C. Knox (R) 3 years - Died in office.
William E. Crow (R) 3 years - Appointed after Knox's death. Died in office
David A. Reed (R) 13 years -Appointed after Crow's death
Joseph F. Guffey (D) 12 years
Edward Martin (R) 12 years
Hugh D. Scott, Jr. (R) 18 years
H. John Heinz III (R) 14 years - died in office
Harris Wofford (D) 4 years, elected, filling Heinz' term
Rick Santorum (R) 12 years

----
If we look at Massachusetts, for example, we see Senators such as
Daniel Webster, who served 14 years,
Charles Sumner, who served 23 Years,
Henry Wilson who served 18 years,
and George Hoar who served 25 years - all pre-17th Amendment.

(& Why on earth I took the time to look up all this trivial information, I'll never know.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah. What sane person, who understands checks and balances, doesn't want to return Senate control back to the States and restore their power over the Federal Government?

I like Senate control with the actual people instead of the state legislatures. You think pork is bad now watch what happens when Senators need to appease the state legislatures to keep their job.

Watch what happens when the public can't hold them accountable for not looking out for their best interests.

Wrong-o!

With Senators appointed by the state legislatures, the states will once again have a say-so in the size of federal budgets....States can't just print up money like the feds can.

I've been watching your and Dan's points on this and they are beginning to make sense. Keep going. You might be obtaining a convert here.

 

[American Horse]

While it does appear, having complied one Tier of Senators from one state (which may not reflect the whole) - in this instance, taking the 1st Tier from Pennsylvania, the most recent senators have been elected longer. However, with the many resignations, and some deaths, it's hard to see if it is a true measure that is meaningful of anything. It's quite likely they have, in whole, served longer post 17th.

William Maclay (ANTI-ADMIN) -He received a two-year term instead of the usual six-year term for senators after he lost a lottery with the other Pennsylvania senator, Robert Morris.

James Ross (PRO-ADMIN,F) 9 years.
Samuel Maclay (R) 6 years
Michael Leib (R) 5 years, resigned, having been appointed postmaster of Philadelphia;
Jonathan Roberts (R) 6 years
William Findlay (R,JR,J) 6 years (elected to fill the vacancy 1821, caused by the failure of the legislature to elect.)
Isaac D. Barnard (J) Resigned after 3 years due to ill health.
George M. Dallas (J) Completed the term left open by Barnard.
Samuel McKean (J,D) 6 years
Daniel Sturgeon (D) 11 years
Richard Brodhead (D) 6 years
Simon Cameron (R) 3 years. Resigned from the Senate to become Lincoln's Secreetary of War. He again served in the Senate, eventually being succeeded by his son, J. Donald Cameron, and only resigned from Senate upon confirmation that his son would succeed him, who then was senator for 20 years.

David Wilmot (R) 2 years - elected as a Republican to the United States Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Simon Cameron
Charles R. Buckalew (D) 6 years
John Scott (R) 6 years
William A. Wallace (D) 6 years
John I. Mitchell (R) 6 years
Matthew S. Quay (R) 16 years
Philander C. Knox (R) 5 years - appointed by Governor to fill the unexpired term of Quay, re-elected to the Senate for the full term (to 1909).
George T. Oliver (R) 9 years
Philander C. Knox (R) 3 years - Died in office.
William E. Crow (R) 3 years - Appointed after Knox's death. Died in office
David A. Reed (R) 13 years -Appointed after Crow's death
Joseph F. Guffey (D) 12 years
Edward Martin (R) 12 years
Hugh D. Scott, Jr. (R) 18 years
H. John Heinz III (R) 14 years - died in office
Harris Wofford (D) 4 years, elected, filling Heinz' term
Rick Santorum (R) 12 years

----
If we look at Massachusetts, for example, we see Senators such as
Daniel Webster, who served 14 years,
Charles Sumner, who served 23 Years,
Henry Wilson who served 18 years,
and George Hoar who served 25 years - all pre-17th Amendment.

(& Why on earth I took the time to look up all this trivial information, I'll never know.

Because you are obsessive/compulsive?

I chose those 4 states because they are middle country, and representative both then and now. I could continue across the country through Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, California and very likely, If I don't cull or massage the data in some way, we'd come up with about the same results. It was the best I could do to make a random selection that would show the imbedded trend. Even if you took into account every variation or possible reasons for those variations, the imbedded trend will still be there.

 

[Sarah G]

Sorry, but the Tea Partiers really are crazy. They want to take away our right to vote for our Senators!

Why Repeal 17th Amendment?

They want our Senators to be appointed. Back room deals. Corruption. Great idea.

So several Republican candidates who are trying to get the Tea Party vote had had to walk back from supporting this stupid idea.

Tea Party-Backed Repeal Of The 17th Amendment Gets Republicans Into Trouble | TPMDC

Here's a little history about how the 17th amendment came about.

The amendment says voters get to decide who represents them in the Senate. Before its ratification in 1913, legislatures elected senators.

As you can imagine, the old system reeked of dealmaking, bribery and corruption.

The poster boy for reform was Montana’s William Clark, a copper-mining magnate who bought a Senate seat in 1899 by paying $2,500 to each legislator to vote for him. So egregious was the scheme that the Senate refused to seat him.

Here’s what Mark Twain had to say about Clark:

“He is as rotten a human being as can be found anywhere under the flag; he is a shame to the American nation, and no one has helped to send him to the Senate who did not know that his proper place was the penitentiary, with a ball and chain on his legs.”

EDITORIAL: Repeal 17th Amendment? You've gotta be kidding

And Mark Twain's words pertain to the Tea Party Republican candidates of today, in my opinion.

They are crazy... (Even for republicans)

 

[ihopehefails]

I had to stop laughing at your post before I could answer.

Anyways, the senate is designed to represent state governments and provide a check against the federal government itself since state and federal governments would naturally be opposed to each other.

The senate has specific duties that are designed around the state's interest such as approving federal judges. This places a natural bias in the state's favor in all suits between the state and federal government.

They also approve all treaties so I think a nation completely composed of 50 independent units should have a direct say in treaties that will affect them.

They also provide a check against the house of representatives (and vice-versa) since a body directly elected by the people will naturally be opposed to a body elected by the states where those people reside in.

Finally, the argument that the will of the people will be absent is stupid because all bill must be approved by both house and senate so the people will always have a check against the senate.

 

[ihopehefails]

Sorry, but the Tea Partiers really are crazy. They want to take away our right to vote for our Senators!

Why Repeal 17th Amendment?

They want our Senators to be appointed. Back room deals. Corruption. Great idea.

So several Republican candidates who are trying to get the Tea Party vote had had to walk back from supporting this stupid idea.

Tea Party-Backed Repeal Of The 17th Amendment Gets Republicans Into Trouble | TPMDC

Here's a little history about how the 17th amendment came about.

The amendment says voters get to decide who represents them in the Senate. Before its ratification in 1913, legislatures elected senators.

As you can imagine, the old system reeked of dealmaking, bribery and corruption.

The poster boy for reform was Montana’s William Clark, a copper-mining magnate who bought a Senate seat in 1899 by paying $2,500 to each legislator to vote for him. So egregious was the scheme that the Senate refused to seat him.

Here’s what Mark Twain had to say about Clark:

“He is as rotten a human being as can be found anywhere under the flag; he is a shame to the American nation, and no one has helped to send him to the Senate who did not know that his proper place was the penitentiary, with a ball and chain on his legs.”

EDITORIAL: Repeal 17th Amendment? You've gotta be kidding

And Mark Twain's words pertain to the Tea Party Republican candidates of today, in my opinion.

They are crazy... (Even for republicans)

The only people that are crazy is the ones that believe that the collective will of the people is somehow the same as the individual will of every person.

 

[ihopehefails]

Let's get one thing straight the Constitution was written with an amendment system to change it. We change it with the 17th amendment and we're supposed to do what our Constitution says.

If you don't like it fine but don't pretend we are breaking some rule by adding an amendment.

Who said you were breaking a rule by passing an amendment.

I'm arguing that the amendment should be repealed and the Checks and Balances the Founders envisioned should be restored.

We will not lose our say in the Federal Government because our say has always been heard in the House. But if we don't restore the check of the States, we will end up with a totalitarian system.

It didn't work.

That's why they changed it so the people could vote for their Senators.

Giving up your vote is nuts.

No it is not. Giving other people the right to vote on what you should be able to do with your freedom is crazy. Don't get me wrong. I like plenty of my fellow citizens but I can't imagine giving them the power to vote away what I can do with my life. Most rights in this country were violated because of democracy and it was the undemocratic constitution that nullified their vote. I personally thank God we don't have some kind of unlimited democracy where we can do that.

 

[ihopehefails]

Yeah. What sane person, who understands checks and balances, doesn't want to return Senate control back to the States and restore their power over the Federal Government?

Tell me how taking the power away from the people and giving it to the back room dealings is a good thing.

For starters, bribery and corruption are crimes that happen in any government even when that government directly elects its representatives. Do you think that would go away or is it more likely that someone lies to get into power and then makes the same back room deal as before.

 

[paperview]

Who said you were breaking a rule by passing an amendment.

I'm arguing that the amendment should be repealed and the Checks and Balances the Founders envisioned should be restored.

We will not lose our say in the Federal Government because our say has always been heard in the House. But if we don't restore the check of the States, we will end up with a totalitarian system.

It didn't work.

That's why they changed it so the people could vote for their Senators.

Giving up your vote is nuts.

No it is not. Giving other people the right to vote on what you should be able to do with your freedom is crazy. Don't get me wrong. I like plenty of my fellow citizens but I can't imagine giving them the power to vote away what I can do with my life. Most rights in this country were violated because of democracy and it was the undemocratic constitution that nullified their vote. I personally thank God we don't have some kind of unlimited democracy where we can do that.

How is allowing people to vote for their Senator "giving them the power to vote away what I can do with my life."

Such loopiness.

 

[paperview]

Yeah. What sane person, who understands checks and balances, doesn't want to return Senate control back to the States and restore their power over the Federal Government?

Tell me how taking the power away from the people and giving it to the back room dealings is a good thing.

For starters, bribery and corruption are crimes that happen in any government even when that government directly elects its representatives. Do you think that would go away or is it more likely that someone lies to get into power and then makes the same back room deal as before.

You're not helping to make your case.

 

[ihopehefails]

It didn't work.

That's why they changed it so the people could vote for their Senators.

Giving up your vote is nuts.

No it is not. Giving other people the right to vote on what you should be able to do with your freedom is crazy. Don't get me wrong. I like plenty of my fellow citizens but I can't imagine giving them the power to vote away what I can do with my life. Most rights in this country were violated because of democracy and it was the undemocratic constitution that nullified their vote. I personally thank God we don't have some kind of unlimited democracy where we can do that.

How is allowing people to vote for their Senator "giving them the power to vote away what I can do with my life."

Such loopiness.

I was referring to those who believe in democracy as some kind of protection against the loss of liberty. Some people seem to think that democracy fixes everything but it doesn't and never has. The best example is all the laws that were struck down that violated someone's rights in this country. Those were not designed by some king but by the legislatures we have in place which are all democratic bodies.

Now if democracy actually could protect people's freedom then how did all the unconstitutional, liberty violating laws that were struck down get passed by a democratic body? It clearly does not work for protecting our freedom which is why directly picking senators doesn't change anything.

 

[ihopehefails]

Tell me how taking the power away from the people and giving it to the back room dealings is a good thing.

For starters, bribery and corruption are crimes that happen in any government even when that government directly elects its representatives. Do you think that would go away or is it more likely that someone lies to get into power and then makes the same back room deal as before.

You're not helping to make your case.

It doesn't change whether people directly elect senators or have them indirectly chosen by local state legislatures. Has corruption and back room dealings vanishes since we added the 17th amendment?

 

[paperview]

For starters, bribery and corruption are crimes that happen in any government even when that government directly elects its representatives. Do you think that would go away or is it more likely that someone lies to get into power and then makes the same back room deal as before.

You're not helping to make your case.

It doesn't change whether people directly elect senators or have them indirectly chosen by local state legislatures. Has corruption and back room dealings vanishes since we added the 17th amendment?

I don't know about you, but I personally like the idea that *I* can help vote the bastard out.

 

[Oddball]

You're not helping to make your case.

It doesn't change whether people directly elect senators or have them indirectly chosen by local state legislatures. Has corruption and back room dealings vanishes since we added the 17th amendment?

I don't know about you, but I personally like the idea that *I* can help vote the bastard out.

*You* can vote for the bastard who recalls the bastard, at the state level.

That's another great thing about appointed Senators; even though their terms are six years, they could be recalled and replaced at will by the state legislatures.

 

[paperview]

It doesn't change whether people directly elect senators or have them indirectly chosen by local state legislatures. Has corruption and back room dealings vanishes since we added the 17th amendment?

I don't know about you, but I personally like the idea that *I* can help vote the bastard out.

*You* can vote for the bastard who recalls the bastard, at the state level.

That's another great thing about appointed Senators; even though their terms are six years, they could be recalled and replaced at will by the state legislatures.

That's false.

There is nothing that changes the way Senators are removed - unless you write that into the repeal language.

Which will never happen.

 

[Oscar Wao]

I've been an advocate of repealing The 17th for the past 5 years...glad to see the baggers are finally jumping on ship with it.