View Poll Results: Should Senators be elected by State's law, again?

23. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes! Restore State’s rights, they need a voice.

    13 56.52%
  • No! The people are the states, the state “has” a voice already.

    8 34.78%
  • Don’t know, Don’t care.

    0 0%
  • Abstain

    0 0%
  • Other (please elaborate)

    2 8.70%
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 33 of 33

Thread: Should Senators be chosen by State's wishes or continue with Popular election?

  1. #31
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:11 PM

    Re: Should Senators be chosen by State's wishes or continue with Popular election?

    No, people should vote on their senators. The government should give states more rights. I used to be a stronger Federalist, but now I am leaning more towards more rights for states. Let the states govern themselves, and let the feds back off some so that the states can govern.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Penn's Woods
    Last Seen
    09-01-12 @ 07:09 PM

    Re: Should Senators be chosen by State's wishes or continue with Popular election?

    I voted yes. I think that it provides a better separation of powers for house members to be directly elected by the people, but for senators to be chosen by the people's state representatives. I would hope that it would create a better balance of power between the federal and state governments.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    07-14-16 @ 07:10 AM

    Re: Should Senators be chosen by State's wishes or continue with Popular election?

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    I disagree. I'm all in favor of having a bicameral legislature. However, I would reform it.
    I don't see a reason for an upper house. I don't think that, say, Wyoming, or Rhode Island, should have equal influence on Supreme Court appointments or foreign policy as a state with a much larger population; it's unrepresentative, and it would conflict with your following opinion on proportional representation, imo, which I do support fully.

    I think 'state's rights' become obsolete with the railroads and telegraph; it was pretty much a necessity when travel was long and arduous and slow, but not so much when the transportation and communications network expanded and sped up. It turned the U.S. into 50 feudal cabals. We would be much better off if those provincial governments were reduced to 12 or 14; most of the population still lives east of the Mississippi, so it would be more efficient, reducing the number of governmental bodies.

    Most regions these days are already combining into special regional interests groups for any number of issues, like transportation authorities, water authorities, urban planning, etc., etc, and state government is just an unnecessary layer that can be reduced to regions with more or less common interests that are already forming ad hoc authorities anyway. Doing away with them would merely be acknowledging the new realities of a modern country, and would also facilitate proportional representation.

    Even with keeping a Senate, it would be better if there were only maybe 24 of them to watchdog.

    Having so many divisions only made it easier for special interests like railroads and utility monopolies to corrupt those state govts. and play them off against each other as they do today, fighting over the division of pork and earmarks. Reducing the number of governments would make it harder to do that, and easier to watchdog and correct.

    What I would want is to change it so that the House of Representatives is no longer based on single-member districts. Instead, each state would be granted their usual number of seats. Then these seats would be divided up for proportional representation via election. That way, each Representative represents the members of their party in their state.
    Yes, a more parliamentary system would indeed be great.

    Senators would be elected via a two-round system in which those who get the top 2 pluralities go to the second round election.
    I would opt for an 'at large' type of set-up than a separate Senate, but to each his own. We can agree in part on some of this.
    Last edited by Oberon; 03-16-12 at 09:55 PM.
    At what point did history become ethics? Why should we subvert the elusive search for facts to moralist concerns? If you want to be a preacher, go preach. If you want to save the world, go into politics. If you want to invent a world free of evil, take Prozac. -Dave Williams, George Mason Univ.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts