• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the states

Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the states

  • Yes

    Votes: 25 41.0%
  • No

    Votes: 33 54.1%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 3 4.9%

  • Total voters
    61
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

our founders hated democracy be it direct or representative, by people will not reading the founders and find this for themselves,...they let other people tell them what our nation is, and its wrong.

america started to be called a democracy around 1890's since then its what people believe, however even or own government of the past states its not a democracy in government books
l have to agree with that,,

do you think you know what republicanism means?

thats not despotism......
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

it depends on what kind of democracy he refers to

because democracy is usually a two faced mask.


for instance your fathers wanted usa to turn to an imperialist world power ?

l dont think so because thats why they wanted to gain their indepedence from UK

No, the Founding Father's wanted independence from the british crown. They were fine with being imperialist. Look at what they did to the Native Americans.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

l have to agree with that,,

do you think you know what republicanism means?

thats not despotism......


An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced (pre 17th ) among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

James Madison: Federalist No. 58, 1788
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

did you see my last line of the former post?

l just read it now.

our goverment is violating our constitution too

lets get rid of them

but we need a real republic to do it

a democratic one..
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

l just read it now.

our goverment is violating our constitution too

lets get rid of them

but we need a real republic to do it

a democratic one..

i have to favor a true republican one of balance of power, our states and the people, so that no one can control all power and become tyrannical....
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced (pre 17th ) among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

James Madison: Federalist No. 58, 1788

madison lost his validity in the previous post
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

l just read it now.

our goverment is violating our constitution too

lets get rid of them

but we need a real republic to do it

a democratic one..

anything but a bourgeois democracy please
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

i have to favor a true republican one of balance of power, our states and the people, so that no one can control all power and become tyrannical....

teh deep state controls the power .
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

teh deep state controls the power .

under republican government the 50 states have powers, and people have powers.

this divides power between the two, so neither of them can abuse the power they hold.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

under republican government the 50 states have powers, and people have powers.

this divides power between the two, so neither of them can abuse the power they hold.

teh deep state controls all of them
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

sorry i am not understanding this.

maybe you should search about some conspiracy theories :lol:
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Why would anyone believe that changing the way a Senator is placed in the U.S. Senate will have any bearing on how he votes? Elected or appointed, the Senator will still vote for whoever pays him the most.
I don't disagree, but I do think it would make at least a small difference. Not everything is interesting enough for lobbyists to pay for.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Could the reason that the founders hated democracy was because it meant sharing power with the common people? It kind of gives the impression that the founding fathers were elitists.

What do you mean "gives the impression?" The 'Founding Fathers' were elitists.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

as far as l know USA was founded on liberties ,not on restrictions

democracy for all..

Liberties in theory, not necessarily in real-world application. Sanctioned slavery being one obvious example.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

what?.......the house is for the people becuase it is a direct vote, the senate is for the states, that is why it was an indirect vote.

Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.

democracy is the house.....direct vote

aristocracy is the senate..and indirect vote.....this DOES NOT MEAN ROYALTY.......it means people of the senate will be people appointed who have political experience already, they will not be new political officials


The Federalist No. 40
On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
New York Packet
Friday, January 18, 1788
[James Madison]
To the People of the State of New York:

THE second point to be examined is, whether the convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.

The powers of the convention ought, in strictness, to be determined by an inspection of the commissions given to the members by their respective constituents. As all of these, however, had reference, either to the recommendation from the meeting at Annapolis, in September, 1786, or to that from Congress, in February, 1787, it will be sufficient to recur to these particular acts.

The act from Annapolis recommends the "appointment of commissioners to take into consideration the situation of the United States; to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the Constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union; and to report such an act for that purpose, to the United States in Congress assembled, as when agreed to by them, and afterwards confirmed by the legislature of every State, will effectually provide for the same."

The recommendatory act of Congress is in the words following: "Whereas, there is provision in the articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, for making alterations therein, by the assent of a Congress of the United States, and of the legislatures of the several States; and whereas experience hath evinced, that there are defects in the present Confederation; as a mean to remedy which, several of the States, and particularly the State of New York, by express instructions to their delegates in Congress, have suggested a convention for the purposes expressed in the following resolution; and such convention appearing to be the most probable mean of establishing in these States a firm national government:

"Resolved -- That in the opinion of Congress it is expedient, that on the second Monday of May next a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several States, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein, as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States, render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union."

There is no longer a direct vote for House Representatives, the districts are so gerrymandered that the only thing an incumbent has to worry about is a primary loss. Who has the power then? Use your head this time and answer my question. The Senate is still elected by the people of the entire State so no gerrymandering.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

There is no longer a direct vote for House Representatives, the districts are so gerrymandered that the only thing an incumbent has to worry about is a primary loss. Who has the power then? Use your head this time and answer my question. The Senate is still elected by the people of the entire State so no gerrymandering.

a direct vote, means its a popular vote of the people becuase they elect the congress man.

an indirect vote in one where you elect you state legislative body, and they appoint the senator.....that's what is know as the indirect vote for the senator.


popular vote

1.the vote for a U.S. presidential candidate made by the qualified voters, as opposed to that made by the electoral college <----the u.s.electoral system today

2.the vote for a candidate made by the qualified voters, as opposed to a vote made by elected representatives (state legislators),<-----before the 17th
 
Last edited:
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

I say go for direct voting.

The technology exists that 99+% of the voters can vote on every Bill (phone/text/email/mail).

If 50%+1 of eligible voters vote for a bill, in both the House bills and then the Senate bills, the vote counts.

If less then 50%+1 vote, the Congressmen/Senators would then decide it.


Imo, 95+% of all federal politicians are corrupt and cannot be trusted.

They MUST be taken out of the loop as much as possible.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

I think the Founding Fathers had it right. I voted Yes.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

the founders did not want the people to have all direct power...that is why america has a mixed Constitution--federalist 40
Taking away the appointment of senators from the states, has now put the states in the position of all these unfunded mandates.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Liberties in theory, not necessarily in real-world application. Sanctioned slavery being one obvious example.

l was referring to wasps:lol:
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

i didn't under what you where typing to me.

me either ,your grammar is so bad :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom