• 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

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.

That is pretty much my position. We would have been less likely to lose federalism had the states the ability to see their interests represented as well.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Then the Senate could be ruled by Gerry-mandered state maps also, as the dysfunctional House is. Hence, the advent of the 17th. And yes, Repubs will employ the "nuclear" option the next time they can. Imagine Boehner/McConnell/Romney.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Breaking up power and sending most of it to the states would just kick the can down the road, not to mention greatly increasing the tension between states. Check out The Federalist Papers for a more thorough description of what I mean. Instead, the way to relieve the tension is (1) to make third parties more viable, a discussion that I will start sometime in the future; and (2) people should not be willing to resort to violence when they do not get their way.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Breaking up power and sending most of it to the states would just kick the can down the road, not to mention greatly increasing the tension between states. Check out The Federalist Papers for a more thorough description of what I mean. Instead, the way to relieve the tension is (1) to make third parties more viable, a discussion that I will start sometime in the future; and (2) people should not be willing to resort to violence when they do not get their way.
Why do we need two "people's houses?"
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Why do we need two "people's houses?"

Why would you want politicians elected by other politicians?
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Why would you want politicians elected by other politicians?
I would rather have people who know the states politics to be part of the process than excluded.

The more dissimilar faction at play, the harder it is to screw us.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Why would you want politicians elected by other politicians?

becuase when you have all the elected positions of our federal government chosen directly by the people...that is tyranny, ...becuase when the people have all the power, be it anyone who holds all the power, be it one, a few or the many, can be tyrannical.

James Madison federalist 47--The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

wherever the people have power, they always work as a collective, Madison says... people can be elected in a collective way, however they are excluded from government in a collective capacity, because the senate is in the hands of the states.

James Madison federalist 63--The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former.

the founders did not want the government controlled directly by the people, or they would work as a collective body, becuase collective bodies do NOT respect individual rights.....and americans have individual rights.

Collectivism is an outlook stressing the priority of group goals over individual goals and the importance of cohesion within social groups. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the opposite of individualism, which is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook which emphasizes the interdependence of every human being. Collectivists usually focus on community, society, or nation. It is used and has been used as an element in many different and diverse types of government and political, economic and educational philosophies throughout history, ranging from communalism, democracy, monarchy, and socialism to totalitarian nationalism and exists in some organized religions. Collectivism is sometimes confused with socialism, but while socialism, as a political and economic theory, draws more from collectivism than it does from individualism, it is directly concerned with perceived economic justice or injustice such as the elimination of private property. Collectivism regards group action as more important than individual action somewhat independently of cultural context, and does not propose a system of government and civil life, as socialism does and has been used in such ideologically opposite systems as monarchy. Most societies contain elements of both collectivism and individualism.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

becuase when you have all the elected positions of our federal government chosen directly by the people...that is tyranny, ...becuase when the people have all the power, be it anyone who holds all the power, be it one, a few or the many, can be tyrannical.

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Why do cons want two Gerry-mandered bodies of Congress? Why do these same Cons cherry-pick amendments they don't like since they don't run the Senate? We know the cons will implement the "nuclear" option. They have said this. Stop whining cons and change the constitution with a CC.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Yes the states should choose the senators. As it currently stands the state has no voice. I believe it's one reason we see state sovereignty dissipating for lack of a better term.
 
Back
Top Bottom