Is that because a senate stacked with state-appointed senators would be continually gridlocked? I'm a little sketchy on how an unelected senate approves things. If it were impossible to get Citizen's United through the Senate, would that mean other legislation....maybe even most legislation would be similarly stonewalled, and die waiting for senate approval?
then the senate was in states hands and the house in the peoples hands, all legislation in congress had to bring
both the interest of the people and the interest of the states together for it to pass. This meant everyone's interest was heard, and debate on bills would be slow, and carefully debated before it ever became law.
It's worth noting that one of the great revelations of the discovery of how ALEC functions, is that the corporate financiers who get their lawyers together with invited politicians, for the purpose of presenting the politicos modeled legislation, concentrate more on state and local government; not the federal government! Before most of us became aware of how this game was played, it seemed a mystery that so many local governments across the USA were passing very similar legislation on topics from: privatizing prisons and public schools, to union-busting laws and even so called "Stand Your Ground" laws. Now, it's a mystery no longer! As the trail of money and influence can be traced back to the sources.
the federal government is charged with only 18 powers per the constitution, all other powers are the states, the federal government [congress] has no authority in the life's. liberties and property of the American people, ..this from the founders ..federalist 45.
one of the results of democracy is faction or special interest, those that complain about big business in government, and calling for more democracy are in fact getting more big business in their government. to end the power of that big business, we must return to the structure created by the founders, republican government, and put an end to the power, rich elites, who use our government for their own gain.
How is democracy "at war" with individual rights? The subtle shift in rightwing rhetoric over the last 20 years against democracy...i.e. the constantly repeated refrain of right wing talking heads:'America is a representative republic, not a democracy,' shows the hand being played by libertarians and conservatives, that they don't really care about individual rights and freedoms and desires and all that claptrap! What the right cares about is MONEY. The right wants to replace democracy with dollarocracy, so those with more money are able to use their money more effectively to advance their own interests. And those who don't have as much money: Sad Day For You! And the tendency of capitalism to increase the gaps in income, is accelerated.
in the U.S. every citizen has individual rights, however under democracy, there are no individual rights, rights are collective, they would come from the majority[majority rule], and that majority has the power to do anything, even change a constitution, they have the power to create or abolish rights, by giving the majority more rights and taking away rights from the minority.
since I am an individual and American I have unalienable rights under republican government, ,meaning no one or majority rule has the power to take away rights from me, or you, no matter how many people wish to do it.
when a nation is under democracy , the people have ALL DIRECT POWER, and if people have all direct power, this corrupts them, and they turn towards mob rule where the 51% dictate to the 49%.
the founders gave us republican government, of divided power, the people have 50% direct power and the states have 50%, ..this keeps power separated, so that no one single entity can have all power and become tyrannical.
under democracy elected representatives, instead of working for the people and the states [house and senate], start to work for those that will reward them with money, and helping them in the re-election, known as lobbyist, they buy our politicians, both in the house and senate through that lobbying. today Washington is filled with lobbyist getting legislation passed from both parts of congress which benefit them and not the people the politicians work for.....and why does this happen?
because the checks and balances put into the constitution by the founders has been removed by politicians...which prevented lobbyist from lobbying our senators, today because of senators being directed elected, they are not held accountable to their state legislature any longer as they used to be before the 17th, because the state legislature chose the senator then, and he worked for them, and protected their interest.
with the senate in the hands of the states, this provided a check on the federal government so it could not step outside of the constitution, and usurp state powers.
it is democracy, which is filled with faction/ special interest which allows our senators to be lobbied by big business, and benefit the wealthy., which is why repealing the 17th would put power back in the states, place a check on the federal government, and stop most of the lobbying in Washington.