• 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 Senators be chosen by State's wishes or continue with Popular election?

Should Senators be elected by State's law, again?

  • Yes! Restore State’s rights, they need a voice.

    Votes: 8 47.1%

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

    Votes: 7 41.2%

  • Don’t know, Don’t care.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Abstain

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other (please elaborate)

    Votes: 2 11.8%
  • Total voters
    17
  • Poll closed .
J

John

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2012
Messages
72
Reaction score
25
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Should Clause I of the XVII (17th) amendment be revoked?
-Or-
Should Senators be elected as determined by the states and not by popular election as demanded by the federal government?

-Background-
Originally it was determined to help states protect their power and to help insure that State matters were properly represented in Congress. Senators would be appointed in a way as prescribed by the State Legislature.

On May 12, 1912; It was approved by congress to support direct popular election of senate representation.

-Opinion-
I believe that it has hurt the rights of States as an entity to not have fair and equitable representation in the federal legislative process. It has also encouraged many functions to be moved from state level to federal level.

Thoughts?
 
John said:
Should Clause I of the XVII (17th) amendment be revoked?
-Or-
Should Senators be elected as determined by the states and not by popular election as demanded by the federal government?

-Background-
Originally it was determined to help states protect their power and to help insure that State matters were properly represented in Congress. Senators would be appointed in a way as prescribed by the State Legislature.

On May 12, 1912; It was approved by congress to support direct popular election of senate representation.

-Opinion-
I believe that it has hurt the rights of States as an entity to not have fair and equitable representation in the federal legislative process. It has also encouraged many functions to be moved from state level to federal level.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I voted for Other.

Senators are already chosen by a state. They are chosen by the people of a state. Which is how it should be and how it should remain.
 
samsmart said:
I voted for Other.

Senators are already chosen by a state. They are chosen by the people of a state. Which is how it should be and how it should remain.
Click to expand...

Well if you wanted it to remain, that would have been "No" don't change it. If you had said "Yes" the appointment of senators would be done by the laws which that state has.

Also, the reasons I ask this is that. People of the state may not represent the interests of the "State" but themselves.
 
John said:
Well if you wanted it to remain, that would have been "No" don't change it. If you had said "Yes" the appointment of senators would be done by the laws which that state has.

Also, the reasons I ask this is that. People of the state may not represent the interests of the "State" but themselves.
Click to expand...

One could argue the People are the State, therefore when they vote for their interests, they vote in the interests of the state in which they reside because once again they ARE that state.

Sams statement is dead on.
 
samsmart said:
I voted for Other.

Senators are already chosen by a state. They are chosen by the people of a state. Which is how it should be and how it should remain.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It was a solution for a non-existent problem. The people are supposed to be represented by the house of reps, the states by the senate and the executive represents both. The senate is now far more influenced by big special interests. Its also why you see so much money outside a state coming in on senate races
 
Jetboogieman said:
One could argue the People are the State, therefore when they vote for their interests, they vote in the interests of the state in which they reside because once again they ARE that state.

Sams statement is dead on.
Click to expand...

I liken this to Shareholders and a Corporation. What is good or in the interest in the Shareholder is not always in the best interest of the Company. Case and point.

Residents of a state may want "more" whatever it is. = Shareholders want higher dividends,(more direct benefit to themselves)
The State may wish to expand trade & commerce routes, improve schools, build a new port. = Business wants to improve overall ability to generate revenue.

Now by this example we can see how say building a port will help a relatively small number of people, will slightly improve revenue overall. But not be in the interest of the People of the state as a whole.
 
John said:
Also, the reasons I ask this is that. People of the state may not represent the interests of the "State" but themselves.
Click to expand...
It's an interesting question. One could also argue that appointments by the state means Senators represent the particular political apparatus that appointed them, and not the state overall.

I do think the option of going back to appointment has some merit, though... just not enough to convince me.
 
John said:
Well if you wanted it to remain, that would have been "No" don't change it. If you had said "Yes" the appointment of senators would be done by the laws which that state has.

Also, the reasons I ask this is that. People of the state may not represent the interests of the "State" but themselves.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously saying that the people of the state are unable to represent the state that they make up?
 
TurtleDude said:
I disagree. It was a solution for a non-existent problem. The people are supposed to be represented by the house of reps, the states by the senate and the executive represents both. The senate is now far more influenced by big special interests. Its also why you see so much money outside a state coming in on senate races
Click to expand...

I understand that corruption is a problem now in regards to senate elections.

But going back to appointments won't get rid of the corruption either. Rather, it will just change who the money for that corruption goes to - whoever makes those appointments.

And if we are going to have a system that is corrupt I would rather have a system that gives the people the best chance than one that doesn't.
 
samsmart said:
Are you seriously saying that the people of the state are unable to represent the state that they make up?
Click to expand...

In a way, YES. The needs of the State will coincide with the needs of the people most of the time. However, there are times when it does not. I don't assume to know how voters will decide one issue from the next. If we knew that we wouldn't need politicians or elections. What I am merely stating is that I believe that the change from the original system has caused greater systemic harm over time.


*ALSO FOR EVERYONE* it's as prescribed by law of the state, some still do popular elections, some do appointments. This merely returns power to the state to decide. Also it means influence has to be spread over 50 states not just in washington, which makes corruption a little harder.
 
Last edited:
John said:
In a way, YES. The needs of the State will coincide with the needs of the people most of the time. However, there are times when it does not
Click to expand...

There are other ways that is done, such as having a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy. And because our government is based on the consent of the governed it means that the governed should give consent to whoever governs them. And that consent is provided by elections.

John said:
I don't assume to know how voters will decide one issue from the next. If we knew that we wouldn't need politicians or elections. What I am merely stating is that I believe that the change from the original system has caused greater systemic harm over time.
Click to expand...

In the previous system, Senators went unappointed because partisan legislators in the state governments would filibuster the process until they gained power in the state legislature - and the response usually was that the other party would then filibuster the process for them.

This meant that states were going unrepresented in the Senate.

At least by using popular election seats get filled, and the people of the state are represented in the Senate.
 
samsmart said:
I understand that corruption is a problem now in regards to senate elections.

But going back to appointments won't get rid of the corruption either. Rather, it will just change who the money for that corruption goes to - whoever makes those appointments.

And if we are going to have a system that is corrupt I would rather have a system that gives the people the best chance than one that doesn't.
Click to expand...

many of the post bill of rights amendments tend to be hasty responses to short term crisis. SOme made sense=such as allowing women the vote or allowing those old enough to be drafted to a poorly run war to be able to vote. Other things were disasters, prohibition, the income tax and others were to create a solution to a problem that already had a solution (such as limiting presidents to two terms)
 
TurtleDude said:
many of the post bill of rights amendments tend to be hasty responses to short term crisis. SOme made sense=such as allowing women the vote or allowing those old enough to be drafted to a poorly run war to be able to vote. Other things were disasters, prohibition, the income tax and others were to create a solution to a problem that already had a solution (such as limiting presidents to two terms)
Click to expand...

With all due respect, that's a matter of opinion as to which amendments were hasty and which have been detrimental to this country and which have not.
 
I just don't see the point in switching it to the way it was before the 17th Amendment, it really seems pretty redundant.

People elect the State Legislature that would elect the senators...

Therefore which person the State Senator/Representative would vote for becomes an election issue anyway.

On top of that you have the problem where if the State legislature becomes gridlocked the people of that State could go without representation in the Senate.

And as Radcen pointed out the Senator choices has the potential to become a partisan **** show, lets say the Democrats or Republicans had a bad year at the State level... it would lead to a senate possibly dominated by either party when that wasn't the peoples wish at the federal level...

Just some of the problems I see.

Again, I reiterate my point that there is no State without the people, Therefore if there are people sent from the State to represent them at the federal level, they simply MUST be elected by the people.
 
Jetboogieman said:
I just don't see the point in switching it to the way it was before the 17th Amendment, it really seems pretty redundant.

People elect the State Legislature that would elect the senators...

Therefore which person the State Senator/Representative would vote for becomes an election issue anyway.
Click to expand...

This. Just like we talk about Supreme Court Justices when we vote for a President, selection of Senators would just become an issue in elections for state legislatures and Governors.

Governors aren't exactly anymore immune to corruption than a Senator. See Rod Blagojevich. He tried to "sell" a Senate seat. Putting it in the hands of the Governors would mean it happens all the time.
 
samsmart said:
With all due respect, that's a matter of opinion as to which amendments were hasty and which have been detrimental to this country and which have not.
Click to expand...

but of course
 
rocket88 said:
This. Just like we talk about Supreme Court Justices when we vote for a President, selection of Senators would just become an issue in elections for state legislatures and Governors.

Governors aren't exactly anymore immune to corruption than a Senator. See Rod Blagojevich. He tried to "sell" a Senate seat. Putting it in the hands of the Governors would mean it happens all the time.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was the corruption of wealthy businessmen paying off state legislators for votes for senate appointments that led to the adoption of the 17th.
 
TurtleDude said:
I disagree. It was a solution for a non-existent problem. The people are supposed to be represented by the house of reps, the states by the senate and the executive represents both. The senate is now far more influenced by big special interests. Its also why you see so much money outside a state coming in on senate races
Click to expand...

Why would that change if the governors or the state legislatures picked the US senators, rather than the people of the state? The outside money would just buy them off instead.
 
Senators should be elected by popular election. So should the president for that matter. States are just groups of people. Let those people decide who will represent them on the national stage. They don't need other people they've chosen to represent them within the state to decide for them by proxy.
 
John said:
Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I picked "No! The people are the states, the state “has” a voice already".The people are the state.Letting local state elected officials elect Senators only makes those senators answerable to them and not the people. Elected officials should only be answerable to the people.
 
Strictly speaking from a limited democracy point of view, I like the idea of having a filter between the voter, and the selection of our Senators. That's just because I don't trust voters to do a very good job at picking their representatives.

Of course, with all the issues with campaign contributions, and the influence of money, having State Legislators choose Senators would just make the lobbyists' jobs easier, so that is a negative. Thing's would be so much easier with strict public finance laws for campaigns, but that's off topic.
 
Well, just to summarize at this point it’s effectively 70% for the election of senators by the state’s laws. (I.E. Repeal Clause 1 of the XVII Amendment)
And for sustainment of the amendment it’s 30%. (due to the fact that the one “Other” vote stated his view)

Can we get more people to weigh in?

-If this were congress we would nearly have our 3/4's for sending it to the states for ratification.
 
Another part of the right wing plan to repeal any political advancement made in the 20th Century. Ah the good old days of the Gilded Age. ;):mrgreen:
 
Direct appointment of senators was a mistake with far-reaching consequences. The 16th and 17th need to go the way of the 18th...

All were equally misguided. It is sad that only the latter was repealed.
 
JayDubya said:
Direct appointment of senators was a mistake with far-reaching consequences. The 16th and 17th need to go the way of the 18th...

All were equally misguided. It is sad that only the latter was repealed.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more on the the 16th as well. VIVA LE FAIR TAX! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom