• 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!

Tea Partiers want to repeal the 17th amendment

RightinNYC said:
I seem to remember there being plenty of senators prior to 1913. Moreover, the fact that there were some delays in some states in some cases does not make an open and shut case here. It could very easily have been reformed by improving the state electoral process.
Click to expand...

For those states who weren't represented in the Senate for key legislation that was passed, it was an issue. And start with improving the electoral processes in the states than going directly to repealing the 17th Amendment.


RightinNYC said:
That's certainly one view, and probably one that has the majority of support. However, there are plenty of arguments against it, including those that don't rely on distrust of federal politicians.
Click to expand...

That may be the case, but I haven't really heard of an argument for the repeal of the 17th that can't be addressed through some other fashion.
 
samsmart said:
For those states who weren't represented in the Senate for key legislation that was passed, it was an issue. And start with improving the electoral processes in the states than going directly to repealing the 17th Amendment.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that it wasn't a concern, as it was obviously enacted. My point is that I don't think it was the only possible way to address that problem, nor do I think it's an insurmountable problem now.

That may be the case, but I haven't really heard of an argument for the repeal of the 17th that can't be addressed through some other fashion.
Click to expand...

What other reform would restore the balance between federal and state governments, ensure that the states as institutions were represented in the federal legislature, and substantially improve the importance and professionalism of state legislatures?
 
RightinNYC said:
I'm not saying that it wasn't a concern, as it was obviously enacted. My point is that I don't think it was the only possible way to address that problem, nor do I think it's an insurmountable problem now.
Click to expand...

Okay. Fair enough.

RightinNYC said:
What other reform would restore the balance between federal and state governments, ensure that the states as institutions were represented in the federal legislature, and substantially improve the importance and professionalism of state legislatures?
Click to expand...

Well, I think those are two separate and mutually exclusive issues.

When it comes to states as institutions represented in Congress, I don't know if I want them to be, to be perfectly honest with you. I don't see what's so intrinsically good about states as institutions being represented in Congress. Personally, I feel that representation of the people of the states is more important.

I would do that by implementing two electoral reforms.

The first is using the Congressional District Method of assigning electoral votes for the President. This method means that whichever Presidential candidate wins the plurality of votes in a congressional district gets that district's electoral vote, and whichever candidate gets the plurality of votes statewide gets the 2 electoral votes that come from that state's 2 Senators.

The other is that I would use Instant Run-off Voting for Senatorial elections in a state. This way, the most moderate candidate gets elected, and thus can best represent the people of the state as a whole. This fits the Senate since it's a more deliberative body than the House is. It would also allow third-party Senators to get elected, and may have an affect on other elections.

When it comes to increasing the professionalism of state governments, one reform I can think of is for the states to use unicameral legislatures and nonpartisan elections, much like how Nebraska's legislature works. State governments don't need bicameralism to operate - all it does is increase the number of ineffectual politicians state taxes have to pay for. So the states should switch over to unicameral legislatures, have open nonpartisan primaries, and let the top 2 vote-getters run in a general election. That will decrease the number of state legislators and open up state governments to third-parties, and give the people as a whole more say over their state politicians.
 
samsmart said:
When it comes to states as institutions represented in Congress, I don't know if I want them to be, to be perfectly honest with you. I don't see what's so intrinsically good about states as institutions being represented in Congress. Personally, I feel that representation of the people of the states is more important.
Click to expand...

The country has over 300,000,000 souls to govern. With an expansive federal government, you get top-down, one size fits all solutions. With more states, you get 50 distinct ways to attack a problem instead of one. By giving states representation in congress this allows states to have a say in the federal government and lessen its power.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
The country has over 300,000,000 souls to govern. With an expansive federal government, you get top-down, one size fits all solutions. With more states, you get 50 distinct ways to attack a problem instead of one. By giving states representation in congress this allows states to have a say in the federal government and lessen its power.
Click to expand...

But what you are saying is that it's inherently good take more power away from the federal government. As if the state government protects us from the federal government. While there is truth in that, I also believe that the federal government protects us from state governments. One instance where this is true was with regards to desegregation, when it took federal troops to desegregate the schools in states that resisted desegregation.

I, for one, am just as wary of state governments as I am for the federal government. Which is why I want more power given to the people. This includes for the people to have the ability to pass popular initiatives as federal law that requires 50%+1 votes nationally and for it to pass a majority in 50%+1 of the states (so that not only must a popular initiative get the majority of votes nationwide to pass federal law, it must get a majority of votes in 26 states). This way, the people can pass or repeal federal laws that Congress refuses to move on.
 
samsmart said:
Okay. Fair enough.



Well, I think those are two separate and mutually exclusive issues.

When it comes to states as institutions represented in Congress, I don't know if I want them to be, to be perfectly honest with you. I don't see what's so intrinsically good about states as institutions being represented in Congress. Personally, I feel that representation of the people of the states is more important.
Click to expand...

And here we disagree. The people are already represented in Congress via the House, and I think it's very important to have the states as institutions represented via the Senate, as they were for the first 130 years of our country.


I would do that by implementing two electoral reforms.

The first is using the Congressional District Method of assigning electoral votes for the President. This method means that whichever Presidential candidate wins the plurality of votes in a congressional district gets that district's electoral vote, and whichever candidate gets the plurality of votes statewide gets the 2 electoral votes that come from that state's 2 Senators.

The other is that I would use Instant Run-off Voting for Senatorial elections in a state. This way, the most moderate candidate gets elected, and thus can best represent the people of the state as a whole. This fits the Senate since it's a more deliberative body than the House is. It would also allow third-party Senators to get elected, and may have an affect on other elections.
Click to expand...

This is all well and good as a proposal for general electoral reform, but it doesn't really address the issues involving the 17th Amendment.

When it comes to increasing the professionalism of state governments, one reform I can think of is for the states to use unicameral legislatures and nonpartisan elections, much like how Nebraska's legislature works. State governments don't need bicameralism to operate - all it does is increase the number of ineffectual politicians state taxes have to pay for. So the states should switch over to unicameral legislatures, have open nonpartisan primaries, and let the top 2 vote-getters run in a general election. That will decrease the number of state legislators and open up state governments to third-parties, and give the people as a whole more say over their state politicians.
Click to expand...

If their responsibilities are limited, it doesn't matter how we elect state legislators - people still won't pay attention. I doubt that NE's legislature is much more professional than that of any other state. A repeal of the 17th would guarantee that we'd have an improvement in quality across the board.
 
samsmart said:
But what you are saying is that it's inherently good take more power away from the federal government. As if the state government protects us from the federal government. While there is truth in that, I also believe that the federal government protects us from state governments. One instance where this is true was with regards to desegregation, when it took federal troops to desegregate the schools in states that resisted desegregation.
Click to expand...

That's why we have the 14th Amendment.

samsmart said:
I, for one, am just as wary of state governments as I am for the federal government. Which is why I want more power given to the people. This includes for the people to have the ability to pass popular initiatives as federal law that requires 50%+1 votes nationally and for it to pass a majority in 50%+1 of the states (so that not only must a popular initiative get the majority of votes nationwide to pass federal law, it must get a majority of votes in 26 states). This way, the people can pass or repeal federal laws that Congress refuses to move on.
Click to expand...

I am too, however, I'll take 51 small governments over just one ruing everything from above.
 
RightinNYC said:
And here we disagree. The people are already represented in Congress via the House, and I think it's very important to have the states as institutions represented via the Senate, as they were for the first 130 years of our country.
Click to expand...

You're right, in that here we disagree. Yes, states as institution were represented via the Senate in the early decades of our government, but then again people saw themselves as more citizens of their state rather than as citizens of the United States. It wasn't until after the Civil War and Reconstruction that the people started seeing themselves as "Americans." So what I'm saying is that we don't need the division of states as institution in our Congress anymore.


RightinNYC said:
This is all well and good as a proposal for general electoral reform, but it doesn't really address the issues involving the 17th Amendment.
Click to expand...

I think it does, especially using IRV for voting for Senators. I think that using IRV to vote for Senators will better allow the will of the people of the state to choose who represents the state in Congress. While Representatives are voted using winner-take-all, it naturally leads to a two-party system, and it allows someone who has a plurality but not a majority to represent that district. However, if Senators were voted using IRV, the will of the people of the state can be better carried out since the winner gets a majority of votes by transferring the votes of those candidates who get the least votes to more popular candidates.

RightinNYC said:
If their responsibilities are limited, it doesn't matter how we elect state legislators - people still won't pay attention. I doubt that NE's legislature is much more professional than that of any other state. A repeal of the 17th would guarantee that we'd have an improvement in quality across the board.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would. I think all it means is that state legislators will be able to raise more campaign donations from lobbyists in order to affect the choice of Senators in Congress. The lobbyists will pay for the state legislators to pick the Senator, and the Senator will owe the state legislators who will push the agendas of lobbyists. It doesn't take away from corruption but rather prevents the people from doing anything about it.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
That's why we have the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Why don't you ask all the African-Americans who were lynched by people who weren't prosecuted for murder between it's passage and now how effective it was in protecting people equally.

DrunkenAsparagus said:
I am too, however, I'll take 51 small governments over just one ruing everything from above.
Click to expand...

Over that, I'll take 51 governments fighting with each other and leaving me alone in the meanwhile.
 
samsmart said:
You're right, in that here we disagree. Yes, states as institution were represented via the Senate in the early decades of our government, but then again people saw themselves as more citizens of their state rather than as citizens of the United States. It wasn't until after the Civil War and Reconstruction that the people started seeing themselves as "Americans." So what I'm saying is that we don't need the division of states as institution in our Congress anymore.
Click to expand...

I don't see why people shouldn't still see themselves of citizens of their states as well. If they care more about their state, they might get more involved in its governance.

I think it does, especially using IRV for voting for Senators. I think that using IRV to vote for Senators will better allow the will of the people of the state to choose who represents the state in Congress. While Representatives are voted using winner-take-all, it naturally leads to a two-party system, and it allows someone who has a plurality but not a majority to represent that district. However, if Senators were voted using IRV, the will of the people of the state can be better carried out since the winner gets a majority of votes by transferring the votes of those candidates who get the least votes to more popular candidates.
Click to expand...

Whether or not IRV better reflects the will of the people is unrelated to whether it reflects the interests of states as institutions. Put another way, the merits of IRV are entirely independent of the merits of the 17th amendment.

I don't think it would. I think all it means is that state legislators will be able to raise more campaign donations from lobbyists in order to affect the choice of Senators in Congress. The lobbyists will pay for the state legislators to pick the Senator, and the Senator will owe the state legislators who will push the agendas of lobbyists. It doesn't take away from corruption but rather prevents the people from doing anything about it.
Click to expand...

How do you figure? First off, the fear that something might create a greater incentive for corruption isn't a reason not to do it - there is already corruption among state legislators, and increased attention and professionalism should help reduce that. In addition, interest groups already do this, they just go directly to the source - the Senator.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
Whether or not IRV better reflects the will of the people is unrelated to whether it reflects the interests of states as institutions. Put another way, the merits of IRV are entirely independent of the merits of the 17th amendment.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's the case because I think the people of a state can better reflect their collective will themselves than through the institution of a state government.

RightinNYC said:
How do you figure? First off, lobbyists don't do much donating. Secondly, the fear that something might create a greater incentive for corruption isn't a reason not to do it - there is already corruption among state legislators, and increased attention and professionalism should help reduce that. Finally, interest groups already do this, they just go directly to the source - the Senator.
Click to expand...

Yes, lobbyists go directly to the Senator now, but the Senator is also directly accountable to the people of the state now. If a special interest lobby starts donating to state legislators to appoint the Senator, then the Senator can represent those special interests despite the collective will of the people of that state. That will make it easier for special interests to affect legislation, not less, and I don't want those special interests to have any more power over the people through the politicians in their pockets than they already do.
 
samsmart said:
I don't think that's the case because I think the people of a state can better reflect their collective will themselves than through the institution of a state government.
Click to expand...

I just don't think that's the case. The state as institution will always have interests that are not perfectly reflected by the votes of a population that is relatively uninformed and not charged with administrating the state.

Yes, lobbyists go directly to the Senator now, but the Senator is also directly accountable to the people of the state now. If a special interest lobby starts donating to state legislators to appoint the Senator, then the Senator can represent those special interests despite the collective will of the people of that state.
Click to expand...

The state legislators are directly accountable to the people who elected them. Why is that not enough?
 
RightinNYC said:
I just don't think that's the case. The state as institution will always have interests that are not perfectly reflected by the votes of a population that is relatively uninformed and not charged with administrating the state.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but I think that the interests of the people of the state are more important than the interests of the institution of the state.

RightinNYC said:
The state legislators are directly accountable to the people who elected them. Why is that not enough?
Click to expand...

Just because the people get rid of state legislators who helped elect a Senator unpopular with the state's people doesn't mean that the Senator won't be picked by the state legislature come re-election time. Instead, lobbyists can insulate state legislators to choose unpopular Senators by giving them campaign donations or jobs in the private sector in return for selling their vote. This makes it impossible for the people to get rid of an unpopular Senator. That's even if the political parties in the state legislature would allow their opposition to choose a Senator to seat in Congress to represent the state.
 
Last edited:
samsmart said:
Indeed, but I think that the interests of the people of the state are more important than the interests of the institution of the state.
Click to expand...

And I think that the interests of the people are more than adequately represented by the fact that they get to vote for the House, the President, and the state legislators that elect the Senate.

Just because the people get rid of state legislators who helped elect a Senator unpopular with the state's people doesn't mean that the Senator won't be picked by the state legislature come re-election time.
Click to expand...

If state legislators know that voting for that Senator will cause them to lose their job, then yes they will. This is the exact motivation that underlies everything that politicians do.

Instead, lobbyists can insulate state legislators to choose unpopular Senators by giving them campaign donations or jobs in the private sector in return for selling their vote.
Click to expand...

And this doesn't happen already? Look back at Senators who left office over the past 10 years and see how many of them are working for past donors.

This makes it impossible for the people to get rid of an unpopular Senator. That's even if the political parties in the state legislature would allow their opposition to choose a Senator to seat in Congress to represent the state.
Click to expand...

I just don't see this as being realistic problems. To the extent that they actually exist, I think they're outweighed by the benefits of such a move.
 
samsmart said:
Why don't you ask all the African-Americans who were lynched by people who weren't prosecuted for murder between it's passage and now how effective it was in protecting people equally.
Click to expand...

If the 14th didn't help them neither did the 17th. The Supreme Court and non Jim Crow state politicians stepped in. African Americans in the South didn't really have much ability to vote until the Voting Rights Act.

samsmart said:
Over that, I'll take 51 governments fighting with each other and leaving me alone in the meanwhile.
Click to expand...

They probably would be.
 
Queen said:
Sorry, but the Tea Partiers really are crazy. They want to take away our right to vote for our Senators!

Why Repeal 17th Amendment?

They want our Senators to be appointed. Back room deals. Corruption. Great idea.

So several Republican candidates who are trying to get the Tea Party vote had had to walk back from supporting this stupid idea.

Tea Party-Backed Repeal Of The 17th Amendment Gets Republicans Into Trouble | TPMDC

Here's a little history about how the 17th amendment came about.



EDITORIAL: Repeal 17th Amendment? You've gotta be kidding

And Mark Twain's words pertain to the Tea Party Republican candidates of today, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

yeah.


because if there is one thing that definitely doesn't happen today it's bribery in return for seats.

that's why the Democrat who just picked up Murtha's old seat ran on a platform promising to continue his program of "bringing home the bacon"

say what you will about that case in particular, at least that guy was bribing the voters with his own money, rather than the taxpayers.

having state legislatures go back to electing senators (or allowing states to decide whether or not to do so) would be a powerful tool in limiting the federal government by restoring the states' proper boundaries of authority. frankly, i think it would be a wise move.
 
megaprogman said:
You might be right. I will admit, I hadn't thought about it too deeply.
Click to expand...

Like I said though...it sounds really good on paper. I just don't have much faith in just governance to create another power block to bottleneck true progress. Besides, I also don't think cultural boundaries are so much a state line or regional thing as they are an urban versus rural issue.
 
Last edited:
Queen said:
Sorry, but the Tea Partiers really are crazy. They want to take away our right to vote for our Senators!

Why Repeal 17th Amendment?

They want our Senators to be appointed. Back room deals. Corruption. Great idea.

So several Republican candidates who are trying to get the Tea Party vote had had to walk back from supporting this stupid idea.

Tea Party-Backed Repeal Of The 17th Amendment Gets Republicans Into Trouble | TPMDC

Here's a little history about how the 17th amendment came about.



EDITORIAL: Repeal 17th Amendment? You've gotta be kidding

And Mark Twain's words pertain to the Tea Party Republican candidates of today, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah! Like the system isn't corrupt now? It's working like a real charm isn't it??
Look. The idea is about the states themselves having a check on federal power. That's why it was placed in the consitution in the first place.
Foreign governments have more representation in Wastington than our states do. That's nuts.
That's why Obama takes sides with Mexico against Arizona.
We have got to get control of Washington and this is the way to do it. No more unfunded mandates. No more open borders. No more out of control federal spending. You notice that before Senators were elected directly we never had any problem with federal deficits.
It will make people pay more attention to state elections too.
 
theunbubba said:
That's why Obama takes sides with Mexico against Arizona.
Click to expand...

So you want to change how Senators are elected because of what the President does?

theunbubba said:
We have got to get control of Washington and this is the way to do it. No more unfunded mandates. No more open borders. No more out of control federal spending.
Click to expand...

The repeal of the 17th amendment won't do any of those things. All it means is that Senators will give unfunded mandates and out of control federal spending that benefit their state legislators rather the people of their state. Which is much more dangerous, if you ask me.

theunbubba said:
You notice that before Senators were elected directly we never had any problem with federal deficits.
Click to expand...

If your problem is federal deficits, then why not instead lobby for a federal deficit amendment?

theunbubba said:
It will make people pay more attention to state elections too.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a good enough reason to allow state legislatures to appoint Senators.
 
RightinNYC said:
And I think that the interests of the people are more than adequately represented by the fact that they get to vote for the House, the President, and the state legislators that elect the Senate.
Click to expand...

Not exactly, as the House represents the people of their district within a state, while the Senate represent the people of the state as a whole.

RightinNYC said:
If state legislators know that voting for that Senator will cause them to lose their job, then yes they will. This is the exact motivation that underlies everything that politicians do.
Click to expand...

Except that the people wouldn't have to get rid of one state legislator in order to get rid of a Senator - they'd have to get rid of all the state legislators who support an unpopular Senator. Why should the people have to vote out +40 state legislators in order to get rid of one Senator?

RightinNYC said:
And this doesn't happen already? Look back at Senators who left office over the past 10 years and see how many of them are working for past donors.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know it happens now. However, currently the people have an easier time voting out unpopular or corrupt Senators since they don't have to bother with the state legislature now. I'd rather keep that power to the people.

RightinNYC said:
I just don't see this as being realistic problems. To the extent that they actually exist, I think they're outweighed by the benefits of such a move.
Click to expand...

Considering how that was the reason why the 17th was passed in the first place, I think it's an extremely realistic problem.

Take the Florida legislature, for instance. It's 2010 and they still have not passed a law criminalizing bestiality. Every time the bill comes up for a vote, it fails. When it came up a few weeks ago, it failed because there were state legislators who were afraid that voters would see it as a waste of time.

Now if a state legislature can't get a vote criminalizing puppy pumping, then why on Earth do we want to give them the power to choose our Senators?
 
samsmart said:
Not exactly, as the House represents the people of their district within a state, while the Senate represent the people of the state as a whole.
Click to expand...

But they're still extremely well represented, while the state as institution is no longer represented at all.

Except that the people wouldn't have to get rid of one state legislator in order to get rid of a Senator - they'd have to get rid of all the state legislators who support an unpopular Senator. Why should the people have to vote out +40 state legislators in order to get rid of one Senator?
Click to expand...

But that's not how it would work in practice - you wouldn't have to vote someone out of office in order to convince them to support another candidate, as they'd be concerned about their job enough to be reactive to the voters. Look at your FL bestiality example - state legislators are always concerned about whether or not their actions will win them reelection.

Oh, I know it happens now. However, currently the people have an easier time voting out unpopular or corrupt Senators since they don't have to bother with the state legislature now. I'd rather keep that power to the people.
Click to expand...

And that's fine, I just don't see the marginal advantage in that as outweighing the advantages of a switch.

Considering how that was the reason why the 17th was passed in the first place, I think it's an extremely realistic problem.
Click to expand...

You don't think it's possible to come up with a system where it would work? Off the top of my head:

*No filibuster
*Six months before a seat opens up, the state legislators must make nominations.
*Three months before the seat opens up, there is the first vote. If someone gets a majority, they're elected, if not, the politicians vote again, deciding between the top two vote-getters.
*If the state legislature is perfectly matched and is deadlocked between two candidates, they vote again one week later. If they're still evenly matched, the governor casts the deciding vote.

I don't see why something like that would be unworkable.

Take the Florida legislature, for instance. It's 2010 and they still have not passed a law criminalizing bestiality. Every time the bill comes up for a vote, it fails. When it came up a few weeks ago, it failed because there were state legislators who were afraid that voters would see it as a waste of time.

Now if a state legislature can't get a vote criminalizing puppy pumping, then why on Earth do we want to give them the power to choose our Senators?
Click to expand...

They're not voting on it because it's seen by many as a waste of time. I doubt that many legislators would see the election of a Senator as a waste of time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom