COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

What's all this about the 17th Amendment?

Rightguide said:
It's not all "Republican." Let's not forget that Califonia blacks voted 70% against gay marriage, a fairly conservative position, yet vote liberal Democrat traditionally.
Click to expand...
Why shouldn't we forget that? Was this particular poll actually reliable?
 
More proof that the notion of the Tea Party as a "peoples' movement" is a fraud. There are a lot of things you can say about taking away the right to vote for certain offices, but one thing you can't call it is populist.



sr71plt said:
The power of gerrymandering. Virginia is an increasingly blue state. It's gerrymandered to the hilt. The result is that the state has gone blue the last couple of elections, the governor and U.S. senators are blue, but the legislature and congressional delegation are majority red. All from the power of gerrymandering, which, once done, can only be undone by those who did it to begin with.
Click to expand...



Same thing in Ohio. The first election under the new district lines, the R-D vote in the state was split almost evenly (about a 50,000 vote difference in a state of 11.5 million). The Republicans won 60 out of 99 seats.

The theme I've been pushing in here for years is that the overarching goal of modern conservatism is to entrench Republicans in office, and then separate the government from the voters.
 
Rightguide said:
Bull. State legislators live and work in their districts and are easier to confront for a redress of grievances than a Senator living and working in DC who get's back to his home state only from time to time.
Click to expand...

Regardless whether the U.S. senator was elected by the voters or the state legislature, writing him a letter remains the best way to redress a grievance at the federal level. If you go to your state senator, what's he supposed to do about it? The U.S. senator has already been elected to a 6-year term, he does not have to listen to state senators, they have no power over him.
 
Would this perhaps be worth doing, though, just to relieve U.S. Senate candidates of the burden of fundraising? Get money out of politics to some small extent?
 
KingOrfeo said:
Regardless whether the U.S. senator was elected by the voters or the state legislature, writing him a letter remains the best way to redress a grievance at the federal level. If you go to your state senator, what's he supposed to do about it? The U.S. senator has already been elected to a 6-year term, he does not have to listen to state senators, they have no power over him.
Click to expand...

Under the old system the state legislatures could recall a Senator, enough pressure having been applied from voters.
 
KingOrfeo said:
Would this perhaps be worth doing, though, just to relieve U.S. Senate candidates of the burden of fundraising? Get money out of politics to some small extent?
Click to expand...

One thing to consider is, if a state decided all of a sudden, to change the direction of their politics and give the other party a majority in their legislature but still had opposing Senators in office it could be shown the state legislature and the people of the state were not being properly represented.
 
Rightguide said:
Under the old system the state legislatures could recall a Senator, enough pressure having been applied from voters.
Click to expand...

Cite? That's not in the Constitution, which specifies 6-year terms for senators. Any specific instances of senators being recalled?
 
Rightguide said:
One thing to consider is, if a state decided all of a sudden, to change the direction of their politics and give the other party a majority in their legislature but still had opposing Senators in office it could be shown the state legislature and the people of the state were not being properly represented.
Click to expand...

If that is a problem it is one for the next election to fix.
 
Rightguide said:
That's the problem, it could be a long way off and stymie action that favors the interests of the newly organized state.
Click to expand...

Well, the FFs certainly did not intend for a political realignment at the state level to immediately translate into a change in Senate representation. The Senate has 6-year terms so that change will be slow, compared to the HoR.
 
KingOrfeo said:
Well, the FFs certainly did not intend for a political realignment at the state level to immediately translate into a change in Senate representation. The Senate has 6-year terms so that change will be slow, compared to the HoR.
Click to expand...

The founding fathers didn't contemplate a Senate where Senators were chosen by the people but instead by the legislatures. They contemplated a system where Senators could be politically directed in how to vote by state legislatures which in their minds fortified the concept of federalism. The country existed in that fashion for 125 years before the 17th was ratified.

If you prefer the Senate working on national and international agendas while constantly running for President and distant from their constituencies, then keep things the way they are. If you prefer a traditional Senate working in the interests of their home states go for the idea of repeal. Simple choice for either side.
 
Rightguide said:
The founding fathers didn't contemplate a Senate where Senators were chosen by the people but instead by the legislatures. They contemplated a system where Senators could be politically directed in how to vote by state legislatures which in their minds fortified the concept of federalism.
Click to expand...

Under that system, partisan control of a state legislature could change at any time; but the FFs provided no mechanism for that change to immediately translate into a change in Senate representation. And it never was the case that senators were politically directed in how to vote by their state legislatures; senators were always politically independent. Senators are not state-government ambassadors and were never meant to be.
 
Rightguide said:
It's not all "Republican." Let's not forget that Califonia blacks voted 70% against gay marriage, a fairly conservative position, yet vote liberal Democrat traditionally.
Click to expand...

What's that got to do with the fact that (R)'s care more about micromanaging peoples sex lives and consumption habits like a bunch of busy body fuckin' socialist.... than running the fucking country ?
 
KingOrfeo said:
And then the state legislature does the determining, and does so to favor the future electoral prospects of the party that controls it. Bad system. Redistricting should be left to nonpartisan bureaucrats, like in Canada.
Click to expand...

Arizona tried that with two Democrats, two Republicans and an "independent" who turned out to be in the Democrats' pocket. Hard to believe she passed muster in the first place. The Republicans must have been very passive in the vetting process.
I'd prefer it redistricting was left with elected representatives, and I'd prefer the districts were shaped like rectangles as much as possible.
 
OldJourno said:
Arizona tried that with two Democrats, two Republicans and an "independent" who turned out to be in the Democrats' pocket. Hard to believe she passed muster in the first place. The Republicans must have been very passive in the vetting process.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a multipartisan as distinct from a nonpartisan panel.

Here's how Canada does it.

Increasingly unpopular, partisan redistricting in Canada finally ended in 1964 with the Peason government’s passage of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. Under the terms of the new legislation, parliamentary ridings could henceforth only be modified by special non-partisan committees residing in each province. Each redistricting committee would consist of one provincial judge and two individuals appointed by Canada’s apolitical Speaker of the House, and their decisions could only be overturned by parliament in the case of exceptional, and provable, concern.

The Act further prescribed that parliamentary ridings were to be drawn in conformity with some clear “community of interest or community of identity” already existing in the province, and set limits on the degree to which borders were allowed to deviate from their historic status quo.

Today, most Canadian ridings are simple and uncontroversial, chunky and geometric, and usually conform to the vague borders of some existing geographic / civic region knowable to the average citizen who lives there. Ridings are given descriptive titles to reflect their geographic reality, for example the “Scarborough Southwest” riding, or “Calgary Centre.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BotanyBoy said:
What's that got to do with the fact that (R)'s care more about micromanaging peoples sex lives and consumption habits like a bunch of busy body fuckin' socialist.... than running the fucking country ?
Click to expand...

it just means those morals driving that agenda aren't all synonymous with Republicans.
 
KingOrfeo said:
Under that system, partisan control of a state legislature could change at any time; but the FFs provided no mechanism for that change to immediately translate into a change in Senate representation. And it never was the case that senators were politically directed in how to vote by their state legislatures; senators were always politically independent. Senators are not state-government ambassadors and were never meant to be.
Click to expand...

That's because they gave the political mechanism to the states.
 
OldJourno said:
Arizona tried that with two Democrats, two Republicans and an "independent" who turned out to be in the Democrats' pocket. Hard to believe she passed muster in the first place. The Republicans must have been very passive in the vetting process.
Click to expand...


Arizona has 5 Republican House members and 4 Democrats. Sounds pretty close to the actual partisan breakdown in the state.
 
KingOrfeo said:
Yes, from the beginning. Senators have never been obliged to take orders from their state capitals.
Click to expand...

That's total naive BS and a denial of the political realities involved in gaining legislative appointment in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

butters
dribble believes the USA must break up into two countries... how would that even be possible?
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
844
HisArpy
HisArpy
butters
Luttig joins Common Cause in Moore v Harper S.C case: "Legally, it's the whole ballgame"
Replies
7
Views
172
ll74
ll74
P
What's the fuss about the 17th Amendment?
2
Replies
43
Views
966
YDB95
YDB95
Wrong Element
Some Election Eve Thoughts On Ryan vs. Vance
Replies
5
Views
358
ll74
ll74
DeluxAuto
GOP Candidates Scrub Their Sites of Abortion and Trump "The Big Scrub" is On
Replies
3
Views
263
jaF0
jaF0
Back
Top