• 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

ernst barkmann said:
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.
Click to expand...

Gerrymandering is an abuse of power that takes the power of the vote away from the people. How can we deal with that?
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

iguanaman said:
Gerrymandering is an abuse of power that takes the power of the vote away from the people. How can we deal with that?
Click to expand...

Take it away from state legislatures. Probably wouldn't solve it completely, but it would help.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

iguanaman said:
Gerrymandering is an abuse of power that takes the power of the vote away from the people. How can we deal with that?
Click to expand...

its not by normal statue law....laws can always be used by the powers that be in their favor, when they are in power, the only way to stop actions by those with power is amendments to constitutions.

now they may violate those amendments (break law) but they cant write them in there favor any more.

state constitutional amendments have a very easy things in the last several elections i vote in, with many of them on the ballot.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Lord of Planar said:
Taking away the appointment of senators from the states, has now put the states in the position of all these unfunded mandates.
Click to expand...

your 100% correct, because before the 17th the state had their powers as did the federal government.

but since the states have no voice in the senate any longer, the federal government has moved into state powers, and expanded the federal government, and cost the american tax payer more money to run that expanded government, which our founders sought to keep limited.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Medusa said:
me either ,your grammar is so bad :lol:
Click to expand...

that maybe becuase i was educated in america before the dept. of education took over the schools, and we learned things in schools, and were not just pushed through the system.

so my speaking is not based on modern gibberish.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

ernst barkmann said:
your 100% correct, because before the 17th the state had their powers as did the federal government.

but since the states have no voice in the senate any longer, the federal government has moved into state powers, and expanded the federal government, and cost the american tax payer more money to run that expanded government, which our founders sought to keep limited.
Click to expand...

are you suprised that it happened? nothing can remain the same forever.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Unitedwestand13 said:
are you suprised that it happened? nothing can remain the same forever.
Click to expand...


surprised?....i cant say that, becuase it was before my time.

however by going what they have done, they have removed checks and balances which were placed in our constitution, to limit the power hungry.

with that removal, you have seen the explosion of faction/special interest in our government, from internal and external forces, meaning foreign governments buying our government, and costing the tax payer, making us weak economically, and the government violating the rights of the people, when special interest influences our government.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

ernst barkmann said:
surprised?....i cant say that, becuase it was before my time.

however by going what they have done, they have removed checks and balances which were placed in our constitution, to limit the power hungry.

with that removal, you have seen the explosion of faction/special interest in our government, from internal and external forces, meaning foreign governments buying our government, and costing the tax payer, making us weak economically, and the government violating the rights of the people, when special interest influences our government.
Click to expand...

and you think taking power out of the hands of the many and giving it to a few select individuals is going to somehow undo the damage. the corruption is so ingrained into the system now that it cannot be removed except by using extreme measures.

now if there was a way a bring about true campaign finance reform, like make all elections be publicly funded with minimal corporate contributions, then that would be a interesting tradeoff
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Unitedwestand13 said:
and you think taking power out of the hands of the many and giving it to a few select individuals is going to somehow undo the damage. the corruption is so ingrained into the system now that it cannot be removed except by using extreme measures.
Click to expand...


yes i do, and again i will explain, by returning power to the state legislature, it again divides power, becuase power is divided between the people and the states, the federal government is prevented from expanding there powers unless the state legislators approve of it, this keeps government limited.

government an no longer mandate states do things the government wants done, by denying a state federal funds if they refuse. any of the laws, which have been past in the last 100 years, were the government has confiscated states power would not have happened.

the founders wanted a balance of power between two, which is what republican government does, democratic government concentrates power into one, and when that one has the power, they misuse it and violate law, and rights of the people, ..becuase they have all the power , they rule!



Unitedwestand13 said:
now if there was a way a bring about true campaign finance reform, like make all elections be publicly funded with minimal corporate contributions, then that would be a interesting tradeoff
Click to expand...

well myself i am for getting rid of u.s. code 29 152 making corporations, union, organizations.... people, .......and returning to (a citizen) can only petition government, and contribute .
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

ernst barkmann said:
yes i do, and again i will explain, by returning power to the state legislature, it again divides power, becuase power is divided between the people and the states, the federal government is prevented from expanding there powers unless the state legislators approve of it, this keeps government limited.

government an no longer mandate states do things the government wants done, by denying a state federal funds if they refuse. any of the laws, which have been past in the last 100 years, were the government has confiscated states power would not have happened.

the founders wanted a balance of power between two, which is what republican government does, democratic government concentrates power into one, and when that one has the power, they misuse it and violate law, and rights of the people, ..becuase they have all the power , they rule!





well myself i am for getting rid of u.s. code 29 152 making corporations, union, organizations.... people, .......and returning to (a citizen) can only petition government, and contribute .
Click to expand...

personally i am againist repealing the 17th ammendment now because of the current state legislatures, it give republicans a unfair advantage in electing senators because they virtually own several states legislatures and would eliminate any competitive senate seats and give republicans a possible permanent majority in both the house and senate.

Do the founders support one party rule, because i don't
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Unitedwestand13 said:
personally i am againist repealing the 17th ammendment now because of the current state legislatures, it give republicans a unfair advantage in electing senators because they virtually own several states legislatures and would eliminate any competitive senate seats and give republicans a possible permanent majority in both the house and senate.
Click to expand...

well think about it in this way, why are those legislatures republican?....is that what the people of the state wanted?, were they using the legal voting process in having a republican legislature?

to try to prevent republicans from gaining power, becuase you dont like what their polices are even though they got into power becuase they people voted by them, rings of not wanting to allow the voting public the party they want.

i dont want you to think i am republican, becuase i am just as upset with them as democrats.

but here is something for you to think on, ........and that is when power is divided, the house's interest, is not the same as the interest of the senate..., and becuase of that, both houses of congress have to come together to pass legislation which is in the interest of the (people and the states together), which makes it in the interest of the union itself.

this also stops laws which are for special interest, laws which are big a massive and not read from passing congress because one party is in power...........becuase as i stated, both interest must be represented the (states and the people) to pass a bill.

Unitedwestand13 said:
Do the founders support one party rule, because i don't
Click to expand...

well in democracies, one party rule means tyranny, becuase power is concentrated in one entity who have all the same interest....but in republican government again the power is divided between two, so its harder to be tyrannical, becuase of opposing.... interest of those two.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

You gotta love libertarians. They hate every single amendment except the 2nd and the 10th.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Phys251 said:
You gotta love libertarians. They hate every single amendment except the 2nd and the 10th.
Click to expand...

wrong, we believe in following the constitution, i know the 17th is an amendment, but that's not we are discussing, we are discussing its repeal and why its a......... good, or bad idea.

please weight in on either side.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

ernst barkmann said:
wrong, we believe in following the constitution, i know the 17th is an amendment, but that's not we are discussing, we are discussing its repeal and why its a......... good, or bad idea.

please weight in on either side.
Click to expand...

Please explain to me how wanting to repeal the 17th Amendment does not equate to strongly disliking it.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Phys251 said:
Please explain to me how wanting to repeal the 17th Amendment does not equate to strongly disliking it.
Click to expand...

i dont like the 17th amendment i admit it ,what does that have to do with your first comment?

if it were repealed, it would be following the constitutional process.

what is you argument for keeping it and why?..becuase you have not elaborated on it.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Unitedwestand13 said:
and you think taking power out of the hands of the many and giving it to a few select individuals is going to somehow undo the damage. the corruption is so ingrained into the system now that it cannot be removed except by using extreme measures.

now if there was a way a bring about true campaign finance reform, like make all elections be publicly funded with minimal corporate contributions, then that would be a interesting tradeoff
Click to expand...

The "many" already have representatives. The senate was originally appointed by the states legislators, rather than the people. It is because the people, who are swayed by the media in their votes, have effectively elected the same mindset into the senate as the house. this has effectively destroyed the 10th amendment, as the states can no longer speak up for their rights in the bill making process.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Unitedwestand13 said:
personally i am againist repealing the 17th ammendment now because of the current state legislatures, it give republicans a unfair advantage in electing senators because they virtually own several states legislatures and would eliminate any competitive senate seats and give republicans a possible permanent majority in both the house and senate.

Do the founders support one party rule, because i don't
Click to expand...
So...

Am I understanding you correctly...

You prefer a improper system because of short term concerns, rather what is best for our children's future?

Isn't that selfish?
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Phys251 said:
You gotta love libertarians. They hate every single amendment except the 2nd and the 10th.
Click to expand...
Not true, at least in my case.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Phys251 said:
Please explain to me how wanting to repeal the 17th Amendment does not equate to strongly disliking it.
Click to expand...

I do strongly dislike it. That doesn't mean I dislike other amendments.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

We have a uniform DUI limit of .08 because Congress threatened to take away state highway funding if any state didn't do Congress' bidding. States love their highway money. They had to do this, because it has been established that Congress cannot simply mandate individual state limits on its own. Hence, the backdoor approach...

Question: In your opinion, would Congress have made the same move if the Senate represented the states and not the people?
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

radcen said:
Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the states?
Click to expand...

That wouldn't exactly be taking the choice form the People, but exercising their choice through their Representatives. The process was created in its original form to provide for an Upper House populated by long term thinkers, accomplished and successful men, not little trolls like Harry Reid. Popular election of Senators was yet another method for allowing the general population to entrap themselves in the passion of the moment, that they might be more effectively controlled.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Unitedwestand13 said:
I cannot understand why people would want to give up the power to directly elect senators?
Click to expand...

The only way to give state governments a say in the federal government, especially when it comes to unfunded mandates.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Smeagol said:
The only way to give state governments a say in the federal government, especially when it comes to unfunded mandates.
Click to expand...

Another good example... Would there be as many unfunded mandates if states had a say in the federal government?

This thread has convinced me that we SHOULD go back. The federal government is as much the states as it is the people, and both should have representation as both have interests. Even the people's state interests are served better by the state having a balanced say in the federal Congress.

I don't think it ever will go back, of course, but it should.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Smeagol said:
The only way to give state governments a say in the federal government, especially when it comes to unfunded mandates.
Click to expand...
I really think we need to have the states appoint senators, primarily for states rights and being able to vote down unfunded mandates.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Lord of Planar said:
I really think we need to have the states appoint senators, primarily for states rights and being able to vote down unfunded mandates.
Click to expand...

Plus, it just seems most most fair. The federal government needs to be accountable to someone other than itself.

I'd be willing to let the US Senate be made of Senators sent there by their state legislatures and/or governors and concurrently doing away with the Electoral College. I think we're at a place now in history where I think the people are sophisticated enough to pick our President without help from more wise middle-men.

FYI: Originally, the Electoral College was made up of delegates appointed by the state legislatures. It was only afterwards that all the state governments began allowing citizens to vote for their Elector College delegates. The practice we have now is nowhere in the US Constitution and in theory can be turned back over to state legislatures anytime a state chooses to. In fact, in 2000 there was talk of cancelling the election results in Florida and allowing the state legislature to replace it with their own vote and it would have been completely constitutional, more constitutional that what we do now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom