What's all this about the 17th Amendment?

[KingOrfeo]

Every now and then some conservative calls for abolishing the 17th Amendment, i.e, going back to the old system where state legislatures instead of the voters elected (many, not all) U.S. senators. What's the point? It won't necessarily make the Senate any more conservative, it will only assure every state's senators are from whichever party controls its legislature, and I don't see how it will do a thing for "states' rights." The only advantage I can see is that a candidate who only needs to lobby his state's legislature to get elected does not need to raise campaign funds for TV advertising.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Because they own the state legislatures.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Because they own the state legislatures.

Only in the red states, and most senators from there are Republicans anyway.

 

[Rightguide]

Every now and then some conservative calls for abolishing the 17th Amendment, i.e, going back to the old system where state legislatures instead of the voters elected (many, not all) U.S. senators. What's the point? It won't necessarily make the Senate any more conservative, it will only assure every state's senators are from whichever party controls its legislature, and I don't see how it will do a thing for "states' rights." The only advantage I can see is that a candidate who only needs to lobby his state's legislature to get elected does not need to raise campaign funds for TV advertising.

Because now Senators are more attuned to national agendas than they are to the agendas of the states they represent. very simple.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Because now Senators are more attuned to national agendas than they are to the agendas of the states they represent. very simple.

Were they not so before the 17th? It was always their job to be national legislators -- and to be politically independent, not ambassadors taking orders from their state governments, and not subject to recall if their state legislatures were dissatisfied with them. And how is a state's legislature any more representative of the state's local agenda than its voters?

 

[sr71plt]

Only in the red states, and most senators from there are Republicans anyway.

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.

 

[BotanyBoy]

What's the point?

Take away power from the dumb fuck mob.

 

[phrodeau]

The Electoral College gives more power to the states than to the population, as we have seen twice this century, both to the GOP's advantage.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The Electoral College gives more power to the states than to the population, as we have seen twice this century, both to the GOP's advantage.

But so does the popularly-elected Senate in its present form.

 

[OldJourno]

All from the power of gerrymandering, which, once done, can only be undone by those who did it to begin with.

That is simply not true. Districts are determined by population from the census. To suggest that the number of Democrats and Republicans in state legislatures don't change over the course of 10 years is ludicrous.

 

[phrodeau]

But so does the popularly-elected Senate in its present form.

It's been close to 50-50 for a long time now. Repealing the 17th can mean a less-balanced Senate, and likely to the GOP's advantage.

Between the original rise of the GOP and the ratification of the 17th, the GOP controlled the Senate 48 out of 58 years.

 

[KingOrfeo]

That is simply not true. Districts are determined by population from the census.

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.

 

[KingOrfeo]

It's been close to 50-50 for a long time now. Repealing the 17th can mean a less-balanced Senate, and likely to the GOP's advantage.

Between the original rise of the GOP and the ratification of the 17th, the GOP controlled the Senate 48 out of 58 years.

The GOP in 1912, when the 17th was ratified, was nothing like the GOP of today. What worked for the one won't necessarily work for the other.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Take away power from the dumb fuck mob.

So, you do believe elected officials are smarter than the mob?

 

[sr71plt]

That is simply not true. Districts are determined by population from the census. To suggest that the number of Democrats and Republicans in state legislatures don't change over the course of 10 years is ludicrous.

Now that's just downright stupid. You're saying gerrymandering doesn't exist. Now that's just downright stupid. Voting districts are determined by the people you put in them, lunkhead. Go look at the configuration of some of the voting districts.

 

[KingOrfeo]

And in the Pubs' case, gerrymanding is part of an intentional, nationally coordinated and highly successful program of action, first conceived in 2008.

 

[Rightguide]

And in the Pubs' case, gerrymanding is part of an intentional, nationally coordinated and highly successful program of action, first conceived in 2008.

Please, Democrats have been doing this for decades.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Please, Democrats have been doing this for decades.

Both parties have been doing it forever -- in an ad hoc kind of way, state by state, as the opportunity arose. But in 2008, in reaction to their devastating election losses, the Pubs doubled down and conceived a multi-state strategy called REDMAP, the Redistricting Majority Project. First, they would focus the national party's attention and money on state legislative elections (which rarely get any outside attention or funding) in close-run districts; take over as many state legislatures as they could prior to the 2010 Census; then systematically and scientifically gerrymander both state legislative districts and HoR districts in every state they controlled. It's all very well-documented. It was no secret even while it was being done. It's pure political malpractice that the Dems didn't see it coming or think of it first.

 

[Rightguide]

Were they not so before the 17th? It was always their job to be national legislators -- and to be politically independent, not ambassadors taking orders from their state governments, and not subject to recall if their state legislatures were dissatisfied with them. And how is a state's legislature any more representative of the state's local agenda than its voters?

Not really, the Constitution originally had them appointed by the states. Their job is not to be politically independent of the states. The role of the Senate is to temper the fervor of the House and to give each state legislature an equal voice to balance the larger states with more representatives in the House.

A state legislature is much closer to its local constituencies. The idea being if a Senator voted for an unconstitutional law or a law that was detrimental to the people of the state it was easier for the people to put pressure on their state legislature to force his removal than it is a Senator with a six-year term insulated from his constituents sitting in Washington D.C. and knowing the issue will blow over before his term is up.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Not really, the Constitution originally had them appointed by the states. Their job is not to be politically independent of the states.

Yes, it is, because they were never politically accountable to the states. They were never ambassadors of their state governments, the way UN delegates are ambassadors of their national governments and take orders from them and can be recalled and replaced by them.

A state legislature is much closer to its local constituencies.

Certainly not closer than a state's voters are, quite the reverse.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Every now and then some conservative calls for abolishing the 17th Amendment, i.e, going back to the old system where state legislatures instead of the voters elected (many, not all) U.S. senators. What's the point? It won't necessarily make the Senate any more conservative, it will only assure every state's senators are from whichever party controls its legislature, and I don't see how it will do a thing for "states' rights." The only advantage I can see is that a candidate who only needs to lobby his state's legislature to get elected does not need to raise campaign funds for TV advertising.

No it takes Democrats to do that.

Why do Democrats hate everything about choice of than the murder of babies?

 

[BotanyBoy]

No it takes Democrats to do that.

Why do Democrats hate everything about choice of than the murder of babies?

Same reason Republicans will be fucking with sodomy and drug laws while the country falls apart around them.


It's their flavor of control freak.

(D)'s don't give a shit if you do things that lead to being dependent upon their pet welfare projects. You better not go out and make any money for yourself though, that threatens their pet projects and as such must be strictly "regulated" out of existence!

Only elite (D)'s who have paid their 'dues' at the cool kids table should be allowed to make a living for themselves.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Fans of the 17th are fans of mob rule; it ensures the Senate answers to the same mob the House has to answer too.

This means that Zimbabwe gets an ambassador to the Federal government, but Iowa doesn't...

 

[Rightguide]

Yes, it is, because they were never politically accountable to the states. They were never ambassadors of their state governments, the way UN delegates are ambassadors of their national governments and take orders from them and can be recalled and replaced by them.



Certainly not closer than a state's voters are, quite the reverse.

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.

 

[Rightguide]

Same reason Republicans will be fucking with sodomy and drug laws while the country falls apart around them.

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.