political discussion- the 17th amendment.

[deth502]

ive never claimed to be deep into politics. i know a few things, i keep track of the issues that concern me, but by and large theres a lot of shit i am completely ignorant to.

so i hear this debate today about the 17th amendment. we will start out with an overview. basically, the 17th allowed for citizens to elect their federal rep the senate. allowing people to have their hands in the govt more, sounds like a good thing? right?

well, the debate goes on about how the 17th was a liberal progressive movement to allow them to control the govt. before the 17th, senators were chosen by THE STATE. citizens elected their state senate, then the state senate sent their representatives to washington to represent their state, and taking this power away weakened the power of the state, therefore, ultimately, giving more power/control to the fed when the states lose their power to represent themselves.

thoughts?????

eta: im not trolling trying to start a political flame war. i just heard this today and i am completely ignorant on the subject, and frankly, im not sure how i feel about it yet. just looking for thoughts/input.

[5.56NATO]

I agree with the understanding that the original means for sending a rep to dc was abrogated by domestic enemies to ensure their control.
Kinda like the fed act was touted as a way to rein in the banks when it actually placed ultimate power in the hands of the banks.
Stupid people lead by evil, deceitful men.

[Kadmos]

Who do you want your Senators loyal to...the couple dozen folks in the State legislature, or all the people of the state?

While it had some potential merits, for the most part it was corrupt and gridlocked. Senators pretty much bought their seats from the state legislators. And at the time a whole lot of state legislatures were bought by millionaires trying to hang onto monopolies.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

The founders were a lot smarter than the libtards that got it changed and are defending it as a good idea.

[N/A]

So now they just buy off the voters....not so great an improvement.

[Kadmos]

So now they just buy off the voters....not so great an improvement.

A whole lot more voters to "buy off". It makes them actually work for the people rather than a couple of votes on the state legislature.

Plus, if you think about it, a lot of republicans already say that big cities end up controlling the state. The big cities have the multiple districts, which would give them more say in who ends up Senators.

[N/A]

Well, the big cities now elect the two Senators to Congress.

If the State legislatures did it, then the State Senators elected from the rural areas might have more say in who gets to be a Senator in Congress.

As it is now, rural voters have no say.

Six of one, seven and half of the other.

[Kadmos]

Well, the big cities now elect the two Senators to Congress.

I guess that's why the entire Senate is democrats

Oh..wait, that's not right.

You would also have the joy of not having to have Senators pick a party, they could just tell each of the legislators in private what they wanted to hear and then vote however they wanted once elected.

And of course if you don't like your state Senator you don't even have the chance to vote against him. I suppose you can vote against your district representative to have him pick someone else. But if he already is against him...well...then you have no say in it whatsoever.

Plus it would make writing your Senator really pointless, he's not beholden to you anyway.

Taking away our choices sure does make everything easier. Maybe we could just elect our local Sheriff, then he could elect out district captains, who would elect our district legislators, who could then elect the governor, and the governor could elect our federal representatives who could then elect our president.

[nfa1934]

A whole lot more voters to "buy off".

So now they have to use our money instead of their own. Yeah, huge improvement.

[N/A]

Stick to knowing your own State, Kadmos. Our political makeup is different from Missouri

Ad an aside, we do elect our local sheriff, even our local judges DA, etc.

Come to think of it, if we had 200 rural sheriffs voting against 50 urban sheriffs, our State would look the same as it does now.

[Kadmos]

Stick to knowing your own State, Kadmos. Our political makeup is different from Missouri

The Missouri state legislature is decidedly republican. For now

Ad an aside, we do elect our local sheriff, even our local judges DA, etc.

My point was that it could be just voting for the sheriff, then letting him vote for the people above him...and you not being able to.

With the 17th, we get to vote for everybody, not giving a very small group of other people the power to vote for other people for us.

I'd rather have more say in government, not less.

Come to think of it, if we had 200 rural sheriffs voting against 50 urban sheriffs, our State would look the same as it does now.

I don't think those rural sheriffs would have voted in Claire McCaskill.....so I guess you make a good point there

On the other hand, had they voted in Todd Akin they might have been tarred and feathered.

[deth502]

Who do you want your Senators loyal to...the couple dozen folks in the State legislature, or all the people of the state?

While it had some potential merits, for the most part it was corrupt and gridlocked. Senators pretty much bought their seats from the state legislators. And at the time a whole lot of state legislatures were bought by millionaires trying to hang onto monopolies.

and thats different than the current system how??

[deth502]

So now they have to use our money instead of their own. Yeah, huge improvement.

this. keeping the welfare checks coming in are liberal payoffs.

on one hand i think taking away the states power to choose leads to this, and the entitlement culture we have now. otoh, most welfare programs ARE state run, so.....

[N/A]

The House of Representatives is the one the people are suppose to elect to protect their interest from the Federal government. The Senate is the one that the State legislatures were suppose to elect to protect the States interests from the Federal government.

Taking that away from the States weakened part of the checks and balances designed to limit the powers of each group.

Considering you think we need to vote personally for them, I know you think that we should vote personally for POTUS.

[5.56NATO]

I think we should just let kad rewrite the US Constitution.

[00RedZX-6R]

Well, the big cities now elect the two Senators to Congress.

If the State legislatures did it, then the State Senators elected from the rural areas might have more say in who gets to be a Senator in Congress.

As it is now, rural voters have no say.

Six of one, seven and half of the other.

Exactly. Michigan State Senate is controlled by republicans. Michigan has 2 democratic US senators.

[Partisan1983]

I can kinda see both sides. I have always felt 1 Sen. should be chosen by the state, while the other one by the people of that state.....as long as there are term limits!

I have also always been the champion of 1 county/ 1 vote. Whoever wins the most counties wins that State's electoral votes, but that's another topic.

[rktman]

I can kinda see both sides. I have always felt 1 Sen. should be chosen by the state, while the other one by the people of that state.....as long as there are term limits!

I have also always been the champion of 1 county/ 1 vote. Whoever wins the most counties wins that State's electoral votes, but that's another topic.

I sometimes wish it were that way also. In MO and in much of this nation we have a large Red map with Blue urban centers that control the vote, the Senators, and ultimately the President.
We have our House of Reps but their effectiveness is limited.

[deth502]

I sometimes wish it were that way also. In MO and in much of this nation we have a large Red map with Blue urban centers that control the vote, the Senators, and ultimately the President.
We have our House of Reps but their effectiveness is limited.

same in pa. the rest of the state is overwhelmed by philly. without them, even the more liberal cities of pittsburg, scranton, and harrisburg are a pittance compared to the rest of the state. add to that their 110% voter turnout, the rest of the state has no say.

[ltorlo64]

The House of Representatives is the one the people are suppose to elect to protect their interest from the Federal government. The Senate is the one that the State legislatures were suppose to elect to protect the States interests from the Federal government.

Taking that away from the States weakened part of the checks and balances designed to limit the powers of each group.

This is exactly the problem with electing senators by popular vote, the state now has no representation at the Federal level, only the citizens (by the House of Representatives) and the large cities (by the Senate). This has driven the Senate decidedly more liberal than if the state legislatures had elected the senators. A good example of the problem with states no longer having representation was in the passing of the ACA. Many state legislatures were against the requirements placed on the states by the ACA, but there was no at the Federal level that was answerable to them so it was passed.