• 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

Don't the people of the state have an interest in their state not being pushed around by the federal government? One of the issue we have now is the federal government continually passing bully legislation and threatening federal highway funds and the such if the states don't do their bidding. I would think that states might have more clout to stand up for themselves if there were a balance and one of the bodies represented the states (who, in turn, represent their people).

How would state legislatures (which are elected by the people of the state) electing senators protect those states from being "pushed around by the federal government" that direct election would not? And of course, the history of our nation is rife with examples of the federal government protecting the people from the states, not the other way around.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Should the reasons for the 17th amendment be ignored?

tell me which is easier?, a centralized place in d.c. were lobbyist can go, like a "one stop shop center"

or lobbyist would have to visit every state what they wish to get a vote from the senators and lobby the whole state legislature, since it is the legislature, who directs the senators how to vote?

what i am saying is this will help break up lobbyist power in Washington
 
Last edited:
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

No, the power elites already have too much control over them once they are elected.

Might as well make those special interests PAY for that power through campaign contributions overt and covert in an election process.

Why give a Senator to them for free? They can afford it.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

The gerrymandering in the States has eliminated the House as "representative" of the people. The Senate is the only place where the people actually elect anybody. Get rid of the gerrymandering if you want things as the "founders intended". Then we might discuss your proposal.

the founders did not want the people to have all direct power...that is why america has a mixed Constitution--federalist 40
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Would you have the state legislature throw out the whole primary process? Would we ignore the whole gerry-mandered problem requiring the the 17th? And wouldn't the local crime bosses we still have just fill more of the "lobbying" void?
tell me which is easier?, a centralized place in d.c. were lobbyist can go, like a "one stop shop center"

or lobbyist would have to visit every state what they wish to get a vote from the senators and lobby the whole state legislature, since it is the legislature, who directs the senators how to vote?
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Would you have the state legislature throw out the whole primary process? Would we ignore the whole gerry-mandered problem requiring the the 17th? And wouldn't the local crime bosses we still have just fill more of the "lobbying" void?

so your saying its better to have the rich and powerful ,corporations, special interest groups, who might not share any of your states interest lobbying your senator in d.c. better?

since the creation of the 17th, we have seen long tern serving senators of 51 years, and corruption of d.c. grow,

i ask you again, why are you against state representation, and only for representation of the people, ..that is democracy .....and the founders did not want to type of government becuase it destroys itself in the end.

the founders wanted power divided in our nation, so no one could become to powerful, and if you give the people 100% total direct power, ,they will use that power against the minority.......that's what democracy does......
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Which states were so currupt that we needed the 17th?

Did I say it's better in the first statement of yours? This Country has a sordid history in figuring out crooked ways to get around laws and amendments to prevent the crooks from being crooked?

Which crooks do you want in power? Do you believe in the term limits placed on governors in states like Virginia and Indiana?

This term limit stuff always seems to come from the GOP, as they were so successful with in 1994 and 2010.

I have my own term limits, as well as expanding individual terms. Two 6-year terms for the POTUSA, with my reasons. Leave the Senate terms alone, and move up to a 3-year terms for the House, with my reasons. A better common denominator of 6.

I'd like to see Obama go to the House when he's done and become the Speaker.

I like 18 STRAIGHT years in either chamber with the ability to move to the other chamber for 18 more and so on. That is a state right.
so your saying its better to have the rich and powerful ,corporations, special interest groups, who might not share any of your states interest lobbying your senator in d.c. better?

since the creation of the 17th, we have seen long tern serving senators of 51 years, and corruption of d.c. grow,

i ask you again, why are you against state representation, and only for representation of the people, ..that is democracy .....and the founders did not want to type of government becuase it destroys itself in the end.

the founders wanted power divided in our nation, so no one could become to powerful, and if you give the people 100% total direct power, ,they will use that power against the minority.......that's what democracy does......
 
Last edited:
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Please excuse my poor typing before I edited.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

I'm trying to find where I said I'm against state representation. I vote for my state reps and senators. They've done a lousy job since I began voting in 1972 but I'm stuck with them.
so your saying its better to have the rich and powerful ,corporations, special interest groups, who might not share any of your states interest lobbying your senator in d.c. better?

since the creation of the 17th, we have seen long tern serving senators of 51 years, and corruption of d.c. grow,

i ask you again, why are you against state representation, and only for representation of the people, ..that is democracy .....and the founders did not want to type of government becuase it destroys itself in the end.

the founders wanted power divided in our nation, so no one could become to powerful, and if you give the people 100% total direct power, ,they will use that power against the minority.......that's what democracy does......
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Which states were so currupt that we needed the 17th?

Did I say it's better in the first statement of yours? This Country has a sordid history in figuring out crooked ways to get around laws and amendments to prevent the crooks from being crooked?

Which crooks do you want in power? Do you believe in the term limits placed on governors in states like Virginia and Indiana?

This term limit stuff always seems to come from the GOP, as they were so successful with in 1994 and 2010.

I have my own term limits, as well as expanding individual terms. Two 6-year terms for the POTUSA, with my reasons. leave the Senate terms alone, and up to 3-year terms for the House, with my reasons A better common denominator of 6., with the ability to move to the other chamber and back-and-forth.

I'd like to see Obama go to the House when he's done and become the Speaker.

I like 18 STRAIGHT years in either chamber


first :why does this have to go towards a political slang of republicans ..this is not a partisan issue at all, so dont even go there.

tell me by having the senator appointed, do you believe the state legislature would keep sending same guy back to the senate for years and years...no, becuase state legislature turn over more easily and frequently then our federal ones.

one senator would never be returned to the senate for 51 years...there are your term limits.

for obama to leave the office of the president and step into the speaker position has never happen in our history, and would be concerned a step DOWN, only people have gone on TO A HIGHER CONSIDERED POSITION ...USSC.

the term set for congress are set at those for a reason, but to know that you have to read the federalist papers, and why they did it, they didn't pick a numbers out of thin air.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

i'm trying to find where i said i'm against state representation. I vote for my state reps and senators. They've done a lousy job since i began voting in 1972 but i'm stuck with them.

as the founders statE and well as the Aristotle, ...when people vote, they always vote in their own self interest.

That is why the house is for the people thru a direct vote.

and the senate in a indirect vote of the people by electing their legislature.

When you vote for you senator ,do you vote for him on what he will do on a national level, or do you vote for him, and what he will do to help the state legislature of your state, maintain itS power, and see that the state runs smoothly.......no you dont
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

And they didn't know House members would work as little as they do in yet-to-be-imagined times. It is not a coincidence or secret that Repubs control state legislatures in which they cannot elect Senators, therefore I will continue to go there. Time for dinner.
first :why does this have to go towards a political slang of republicans ..this is not a partisan issue at all, so dont even go there.

tell me by having the senator appointed, do you believe the state legislature would keep sending same guy back to the senate for years and years...no, becuase state legislature turn over more easily and frequently then our federal ones.

one senator would never be returned to the senate for 51 years...there are your term limits.

for obama to leave the office of the president and step into the speaker position has never happen in our history, and would be concerned a step DOWN, only people have gone on TO A HIGHER CONSIDERED POSITION ...USSC.

the term set for congress are set at those for a reason, but to know that you have to read the federalist papers, and why they did it, they didn't pick a numbers out of thin air.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

And they didn't know House members would work as little as they do in yet-to-be-imagined times. It is not a coincidence or secret that Repubs control state legislatures in which they cannot elect Senators, therefore I will continue to go there. Time for dinner.

dude you really need to get over the partisanship.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

I sure don't want Chicago Dems to elect a Senator from the legislature. We would not have gotten Durbin. But we may have gotten Jesse Jr, headed for jail. Is their proof on the 51 years? Who is to say they won't put in the same crooked wing of their crooked party and/or crime family. Imagine if a new 2-year legislature couldn't agree on a Senator?
first :why does this have to go towards a political slang of republicans ..this is not a partisan issue at all, so dont even go there.

tell me by having the senator appointed, do you believe the state legislature would keep sending same guy back to the senate for years and years...no, becuase state legislature turn over more easily and frequently then our federal ones.

one senator would never be returned to the senate for 51 years...there are your term limits.

for obama to leave the office of the president and step into the speaker position has never happen in our history, and would be concerned a step DOWN, only people have gone on TO A HIGHER CONSIDERED POSITION ...USSC.

the term set for congress are set at those for a reason, but to know that you have to read the federalist papers, and why they did it, they didn't pick a numbers out of thin air.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Everything in this Country is about partisanship. Dems are behind the 8-ball because they can't stomach the 24/7/365 fight. Attacks on the 14th and 16th are well under way, and not by Dems.
dude you really need to get over the partisanship.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Everything in this Country is about partisanship. Dems are behind the 8-ball because they can't stomach the 24/7/365 fight. Attacks on the 14th and 16th are well under way, and not by Dems.

so that gets into the argument of the 17th , which has to do with appointed senators?
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

the founders did not want the people to have all direct power...that is why america has a mixed Constitution--federalist 40

Right now it is reversed from what the founders wanted. Why not make gerrymandering illegal in all states and redraw the districts geographically? That would be a start to returning things to the way it was intended. Give the "peoples" House back to the people first then we could worry about the Senate.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Right now it is reversed from what the founders wanted. Why not make gerrymandering illegal in all states and redraw the districts geographically? That would be a start to returning things to the way it was intended. Give the "peoples" House back to the people first then we could worry about the Senate.

it would be better to have a constitutional amendment to a state constitution to handled that matter, if it is such a pressing issue then the people of a state, should solve the problem thru that avenue, if they are not addressing the subject, it must not be important to them enough.

but even so, with things they way they are now, ..states still have no representation in government, and no power to stop the feds creasing their powers.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Is the 17th in court? I read that 98% of the senators elected between 1871 and 1913 were from the party that controlled the majority in the combined state legislature, sans Nebraska.
so that gets into the argument of the 17th , which has to do with appointed senators?
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

it would be better to have a constitutional amendment to a state constitution to handled that matter, if it is such a pressing issue then the people of a state, should solve the problem thru that avenue, if they are not addressing the subject, it must not be important to them enough.

but even so, with things they way they are now, ..states still have no representation in government, and no power to stop the feds creasing their powers.

That's just not true, the House has the States power, can't you see that in the gridlock they are causing? You just want to take ALL the power from the voters by gerrymandering the Senate too.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Progressives versus Federalists, 17th amendment--which would G. Washington favor--since so many other amendments seem to have problems also, I'll bring up an old idea. To have an open-ended Constitutional Convention, with 50 state capitals feeding a Central location, which should be easy to agree on, like any or all of the sports arenas in St. Louis. This Constitution could use a 224-year lube job at the very least.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Is the 17th in court? I read that 98% of the senators elected between 1871 and 1913 were from the party that controlled the majority in the combined state legislature, sans Nebraska.

no i dont believe the issue is in court.....

state legislators are elected by the people, therefore if a democrat or repub house is elected, the people must want that party in power of that state..(my personal view is,we should not have parties as g. Washington stated)

state legislature appoints the senator, which means they have to vote, who ever get the most is appointed, are you against that?

since also when the senator is appointed, they direct his vote, and can remove him from office and replace him.

there direction of his vote serves to protect the states from the inherent powers of the federal government to increase its those powers more.

the federal government was given 18 duties with states the rest, anytime the feds create a new power for themselves, they are taking away power from the states. ..this one of the reason states had representation in out government thru the senate to prevent this
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

the founders did not want the people to have all direct power...that is why america has a mixed Constitution--federalist 40

I am not sure why this is hard for you but: the founders are dead. What they wanted is mostly irrelevant. We have to think for ourselves and figure these things out. I think the founders would be appalled at the thought that we had to blindly do what people long dead and not actually privy to the situation said. The founders did not blindly accept much, why do you?
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Why would anyone believe that changing the way a Senator is placed in the U.S. Senate will have any bearing on how he votes? Elected or appointed, the Senator will still vote for whoever pays him the most.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

That's just not true, the House has the States power, can't you see that in the gridlock they are causing? You just want to take ALL the power from the voters by gerrymandering the Senate too.

what?.......the house is for the people becuase it is a direct vote, the senate is for the states, that is why it was an indirect vote.

Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.

democracy is the house.....direct vote

aristocracy is the senate..and indirect vote.....this DOES NOT MEAN ROYALTY.......it means people of the senate will be people appointed who have political experience already, they will not be new political officials


The Federalist No. 40
On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
New York Packet
Friday, January 18, 1788
[James Madison]
To the People of the State of New York:

THE second point to be examined is, whether the convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.

The powers of the convention ought, in strictness, to be determined by an inspection of the commissions given to the members by their respective constituents. As all of these, however, had reference, either to the recommendation from the meeting at Annapolis, in September, 1786, or to that from Congress, in February, 1787, it will be sufficient to recur to these particular acts.

The act from Annapolis recommends the "appointment of commissioners to take into consideration the situation of the United States; to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the Constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union; and to report such an act for that purpose, to the United States in Congress assembled, as when agreed to by them, and afterwards confirmed by the legislature of every State, will effectually provide for the same."

The recommendatory act of Congress is in the words following: "Whereas, there is provision in the articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, for making alterations therein, by the assent of a Congress of the United States, and of the legislatures of the several States; and whereas experience hath evinced, that there are defects in the present Confederation; as a mean to remedy which, several of the States, and particularly the State of New York, by express instructions to their delegates in Congress, have suggested a convention for the purposes expressed in the following resolution; and such convention appearing to be the most probable mean of establishing in these States a firm national government:

"Resolved -- That in the opinion of Congress it is expedient, that on the second Monday of May next a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several States, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein, as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States, render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union."
 
Back
Top Bottom