What's the fuss about the 17th Amendment?

[pecksniff]

That's the amendment that says U.S. senators are elected by their states' voters instead of by their states' legislatures. (Before the amendment passed, some states had direct election of senators, others used legislative election.) Some RWs want to repeal it, on some sort of federalist or "states' rights" grounds.

Let's be clear: The Senate does not give the states, as states, a voice in Congress, and it never did. That is how it would have worked if senators had been in effect state ambassadors, not only chosen by their state legislatures, but serving at their pleasure and subject to recall by them, and taking orders from the state capital. As it happened, the Framers instead worked out a system where a senator is politically autonomous for the duration of his six-year term, which is a very different thing. Under that system, how is election by state legislatures preferable to popular election?

 

[CornusKousa]

That's the amendment that says U.S. senators are elected by their states' voters instead of by their states' legislatures. (Before the amendment passed, some states had direct election of senators, others used legislative election.) Some RWs want to repeal it, on some sort of federalist or "states' rights" grounds.

Yes, because more liberty and self determination.

Let's be clear: The Senate does not give the states, as states, a voice in Congress, and it never did.

Yes, it does, and still does.

That is how it would have worked if senators had been in effect state ambassadors, not only chosen by their state legislatures, but serving at their pleasure and subject to recall by them, and taking orders from the state capital. ​As it happened, the Framers instead worked out a system where a senator is politically autonomous for the duration of his six-year term, which is a very different thing.

It's a more democratic manner of it, but the fact that you only get 2 no matter how many people you have??

Makes them effectively more representatives of their state than their population.

Under that system, how is election by state legislatures preferable to popular election?

Because popular election is what the HoR is for...the peoples house.

For balance.

The two chamber system was supposed to be there to prevent our legislature being a simple majority democracy, because that always ends up a total dumpster fire and the FF's knew that. Thus all the layers of decentralization and checks and balance in the USA.

The Senate should be more of a republican style chamber of congress representing the states, opposite the House.

As it is, other than the fact that we only get 2 no matter the population, we might as well not even have a Senate, because of 17A it's almost just a 2nd House of Reps.

 

[pecksniff]

It's a more democratic manner of it, but the fact that you only get 2 no matter how many people you have??

They only put that in because, at the time of the Convention, the small states feared being overwhelmed in Congress by big ones like Virginia.

 

[Dribble]

Republicans see their racist views being out voted...so they will do ANYTHING to keep as much control as possible. Georgia has a nigger as a Senator...can't have that...disgraceful for the Peach State Klan

 

[pecksniff]

. . . we might as well not even have a Senate . . .

Indeed. I believe that in general terms and quite apart from any question of federalism, a dromedary, or unicameral legislature is better than a Bactrian, or bicameral legislature. It's more efficient -- meaning it is easier for a unicameral legislature to make mistakes, but also that much easier to correct them. Anything that makes it easier to pass bills also makes it easier to repeal them.

One thing I remember from college government class is that the FFs assumed the necessity of a bicameral legislature (both plans under consideration included one, though apportioned in different ways) in order to hamper and weaken it as against the executive branch, because in their experience, in their own states/colonies, the legislatures had turned out to be, apparently, the greater threats to liberty. But it hasn't worked out like that since then -- anything you might call a threat to liberty is far more likely to originate in the executive branch. The thing to do now is to strengthen the legislative as against the executive, and a one-house Congress would be better for that purpose.

But, that's a whole other discussion.

 

[CornusKousa]

They only put that in because, at the time of the Convention, the small states feared being overwhelmed in Congress by big ones like Virginia.

Exactly, that is a check on major population centers from bullying smaller states. That's what the house is for....where the top 5 states hold over 1/3 of the legislative power, and the top 10 hold almost 2/3.

10 states hold almost 2/3 of the legislative power in the house.


That was the whole point of the Senate, to represent the states, not the population and put a check on and to balance against population based democracy being used to bully smaller states.

Clearly upsetting (D) authoritarians who believe might is right and simple majority should rule with an iron fist.

 

[CornusKousa]

Indeed. I believe that in general terms and quite apart from any question of federalism, a dromedary, or unicameral legislature is better than a Bactrian, or bicameral legislature.

No shocker there, all of you 'might makes right' tyranny of the simple majority types are.

You think your control over the population centers justifies any bullying and abuse you want to dish out to "flyover/dumbfuckistan" states that don't want your politics. Put a federal gun to their head and force them to do it the California/NY way!!!

That's why Democratic Socialist, are not liberal.

Thankfully we have a senate and 10A to prevent that and a (D) senator from WV doing his patriotic duty to help preserve it....so far. Hopefully he holds out with his finger high in the air.

 

[pecksniff]

You think your control over the population centers . . .

No, over the population as such. You will, for instance, find some left-wing voters in Dry Hump, Montana, just as you will find some Trumpers in Manhattan or SF's Castro -- in either case, there's no reason why their vote should be diluted or enhanced by where they live.

 

[MissMandy86]

The senate was a comprise to protect slave states
Since congress is based on population.. there had to be something in place to protect the institution of slavery otherwise the northern states could easily get rid of it

 

[pecksniff]

The senate was a comprise to protect slave states
Since congress is based on population.. there had to be something in place to protect the institution of slavery otherwise the northern states could easily get rid of it

What, the three-fifths compromise wasn't enough?

 

[phrodeau]

Truth is that gerrymandering doesn’t work for Senate elections. Allowing the gerrymandered legislature to elect Senators sidesteps that little inconvenience.

 

[CornusKousa]

No, over the population as such. You will, for instance, find some left-wing voters in Dry Hump, Montana, just as you will find some Trumpers in Manhattan or SF's Castro --

Totally irrelevant.

They are in the minority by a wide margin in a state/local jurisdiction.

in either case, there's no reason why their vote should be diluted or enhanced by where they live.

Yes there is, it's called having states.

It allows a whole lot of 'live and let live' pissing authoritarian control freaks off to no end.

 

[pecksniff]

Yes there is, it's called having states.

No, "having states" is a matter of most day-to-day governmental functions being done by state governments or by local governments created or authorized by state governments; "having states" is not a matter of representation at the federal level.

 

[CornusKousa]

No, "having states" is a matter of most day-to-day governmental functions being done by state governments or by local governments created or authorized by state governments; "having states" is not a matter of representation at the federal level.

The Senates existence says otherwise.

 

[pecksniff]

The existence of the Senate and 10th amendment absolutely skull fucks your entire premise here.

Neither of those is essential to a federal system.

 

[CornusKousa]

Neither of those is essential to a federal system.

Didn't say they were, I'm saying they are a part of our system because we are a union of states. Not a unitary state.

And if they don't get any representation or right self governance, they are just subordinate administrative structures for the feds to control, why even have them??

 

[njlauren]

No shocker there, all of you 'might makes right' tyranny of the simple majority types are.

You think your control over the population centers justifies any bullying and abuse you want to dish out to "flyover/dumbfuckistan" states that don't want your politics. Put a federal gun to their head and force them to do it the California/NY way!!!

That's why Democratic Socialist, are not liberal.

Thankfully we have a senate and 10A to prevent that and a (D) senator from WV doing his patriotic duty to help preserve it....so far. Hopefully he holds out with his finger high in the air.

You mean unlike Trump nation that wants to make the US a "Christian, White Nation"?

 

[ll74]

Not really sure what your purpose of carpet bombing the forum with a good number of similar discussions.

 

[pecksniff]

And if they don't get any representation or right self governance, they are just subordinate administrative structures for the feds to control, why even have them??

Same reason we have elected town and county governments. The state could constitutionally govern the towns directly, but no state does.

 

[njlauren]

The bicameral legislature was patterned after the British Parliament and as originally designed the house of Lords had an absolute Veto of the house of commons (of course, until around 1890, the house of commons were all upper class/nobility). The thought behind it was that the Lords would check the power of the commons, they could stop any 'silliness' (like, for example, banning child labor, Irish independence, old age pensions, health care..sound familiar)? The problem here was the Lords had literally absolute power and you couldn't I believe override the veto, you would have to go back and try again.

What happened was in England they realized the Lords was an obstacle to actually getting anything done and they basically threatened the Lords, like FDR with Scotus, to pack the house of lords with new nobility and break their stranglehold, in the period between 1910 and 1914 the Lords basically became a figurehead body.

The Senate was considered the senior house , they were given 6 year terms because they were felt to be the real deliberative body, while the house is only 2 years (among other things, senators only come up once every 6 years). They were a check on the house, and something very specific. House members are attuned to the political wishes of their constituents, and that isn't always a good thing. One of the things the US tried to avoid were decisions made out of quick hate and anger or knee jerk reactions. Just look at GOP politicians who know better cowering in fear in front of Trump, they are afraid of the MAGA mob that the GOP basically enabled.

An appointed senate is isolated from that. If they are appointed by the governor and/or legislature, they aren't subject to the constant fear of being run out of office by people angry about something, that they an use their judgement when the will of the people runs against common sense or against doing what they think is right. Just take a look, how many Senators right now are kowtowing to MAGA when they know damn well we had an insurrection against the government? An appointed senate wouldn't worry about that. Sure, a governor can be removed from office and appoint someone new, but it is a slow process, and by the time the Senators seat is up, things may have blown over. Edmund Burke, the British (well really Irish) MP, said that 'a representative owes their constituents their judgement, not just their diligence".

Also by electing Senators it went from being about states to being basically another house of representatives, albeit in a reverse fouled up way. In the house, we determine house seats by population, and there is a certain number of voters/rep. In the Senate, it is perverted, in Wyoming each senator is representing like 250,000 voters, in NJ it is like 5.5 millon, in california it is 20 million. If a senator is free from being elected, if he/she is appointed, they can represent the whole state, including respecting the rights of minority people (not talking race here, folks, I mean in a state like NYC a senator can represent the interests of upstate NY farmers if not elected a lot easier than if elected, given that a large majority of NY votes come from the NYC region). They don't have to fear the wrath of a majority if they help a minority.

If Senators weren't elected, for example, it most definitely would have blunted the effect of Trump. Senators wouldn't have cowed to him and we likely would have enough GOP senators voting to do an investigation, because the MAGA crowd can't do anything to them, it makes for better judgement in some cases.

 

[Wrong Element]

Yes, because more liberty and self determination.

Taking the vote away from the people increases "self determination."

Does 2+2 = 5 on your planet too?

 

[jaF0]

Not really sure what your purpose of carpet bombing the forum with a good number of similar discussions.

Will/Pecker Sniffer has been doing that for months now, even if there are already similar threads posted by others..

 

[ll74]

Will/Pecker Sniffer has been doing that for months now, even if there are already similar threads posted by others..

Seems to just be common amongst the few posters. Maybe just to push other discussions out of frame?

 

[pecksniff]

The bicameral legislature was patterned after the British Parliament and as originally designed the house of Lords had an absolute Veto of the house of commons (of course, until around 1890, the house of commons were all upper class/nobility). The thought behind it was that the Lords would check the power of the commons, they could stop any 'silliness' (like, for example, banning child labor, Irish independence, old age pensions, health care..sound familiar)? The problem here was the Lords had literally absolute power and you couldn't I believe override the veto, you would have to go back and try again.

If not for the Lords, the UK could have kept Ireland in the UK, on an arrangement with increased local autonomy. The Home Rule bills all died in the Lords.

 

[CornusKousa]

Taking the vote away from the people increases "self determination."

Does 2+2 = 5 on your planet too?

The only people trying to take the vote away from the people is the (D)'s in congress right now pushing the nationalization of our voting system.