• 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

I'd have to think a little more on this. On one hand i feel in a representative government the people should have a direct link to whom they have represent them in both Houses of Congress. On the other hand, it makes little sense to have Federal representatives voting one way on an issue when their State, the people they are there to represent and the representatives in their respective State legislatures vote the opposite.

Too much party partisan, line up and play ball goes on at the Federal level which makes each State's senator that gets elected to Federal office incapable of doing their jobs. That being representing the people in their State.

Does this constitute a grave enough concern to take direct elections away from the people? If the people aren't being represented as they ought, it doesn't matter whom they vote for because whomever it is will and does do whatever he or she pleases.

So, hmmm....anyone have a good enough reason to keep the direct election of Senators? Other than they assume they're losing control over their choice in elected official? (Who does as he pleases despite what his or her constituents want..)

as it is I'm leaning yes, but I will wait to see if anyone comes up with a convincing argument to vote the contrary...
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

No. There is no good reason to do so, and it would only further isolates people from having power.

There is plenty of good reason when exercised correctly. Instead of just having the People check the government, it allows both the People and the States to check the government. The People already have the House.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

I trust the founding fathers. It worked for a long time before it got changed, maybe it's tome to change back.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

I trust the founding fathers. It worked for a long time before it got changed, maybe it's tome to change back.

It actually broke down, which is why it was changed. If you want to go back, you'll have to put some more stringent requirements on the States to seat Senators in a timely manner.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

More than likely I know them better than you. Do not try and educate those who know more.

:doh Oh, I get it. This was a joke post.

:lamo

Well played.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

I'd like it to be. But you have to put in certain oversight. The reason it was taken away was that partisan disputes in State government often led to a State not seating a senator for years. That couldn't be allowed.
Agreed. That would need to be addressed.

(I'd like to see timely appointments/confirmations of judges, as well.)


I'd have to think a little more on this. On one hand i feel in a representative government the people should have a direct link to whom they have represent them in both Houses of Congress. On the other hand, it makes little sense to have Federal representatives voting one way on an issue when their State, the people they are there to represent and the representatives in their respective State legislatures vote the opposite.

Too much party partisan, line up and play ball goes on at the Federal level which makes each State's senator that gets elected to Federal office incapable of doing their jobs. That being representing the people in their State.

Does this constitute a grave enough concern to take direct elections away from the people? If the people aren't being represented as they ought, it doesn't matter whom they vote for because whomever it is will and does do whatever he or she pleases.

So, hmmm....anyone have a good enough reason to keep the direct election of Senators? Other than they assume they're losing control over their choice in elected official? (Who does as he pleases despite what his or her constituents want..)

as it is I'm leaning yes, but I will wait to see if anyone comes up with a convincing argument to vote the contrary...
Good post. Well thought out.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

(I'd like to see timely appointments/confirmations of judges, as well.)

I'd like to see a super majority popular vote being used to remove SCOTUS judges. Have to be a very high percentage, but if they piss off all of America, we should be able to get rid of them.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

No. There is no good reason to do so, and it would only further isolates people from having power.

Which people? If a state has a few large cities that, when combined, make up a majority of their populaiton then the rest of the state has no say at all in the U.S. Senate. Even though most states are red the Democrats have a U.S. Senate majority. I can see why a very liberal person sees no problem with that.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Which people? If a state has a few large cities that, when combined, make up a majority of their populaiton then the rest of the state has no say at all in the U.S. Senate. Even though most states are red the Democrats have a U.S. Senate majority. I can see why a very liberal person sees no problem with that.

So you value geography over people? Interesting perspective.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

So you value geography over people? Interesting perspective.

I value original intent over either, and that intent was to ensure States maintained an equal role in the federal government...
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

I value original intent over either, and that intent was to ensure States maintained an equal role in the federal government...

As long as each state has the same number of senators, that is maintained.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Which people? If a state has a few large cities that, when combined, make up a majority of their populaiton then the rest of the state has no say at all in the U.S. Senate. Even though most states are red the Democrats have a U.S. Senate majority. I can see why a very liberal person sees no problem with that.

So what you want is for the minority population to elect the senate? Couldn't then the same be said for those liberal minority populations in the red states?
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

well you have no show it by what you have said.

Apparently we need a little history lesson since you seem confused. The method of selecting senators was changed 100 years ago this year. It was changed by amending the constitution, using the procedure the founding fathers set out. The allowed for an amendment process because they knew they where not perfect, and because they knew the times they would be a changin'. Now, how many of the founding fathers where alive to see the effects o9f direct elections of senators? Based on that, why would I feel bound by their opinions when I can look at the results myself and form my own opinion?

I seriously think the founding fathers would have a desire to kick the ass of any one who suggested we should hold them as holy and ignore any evidence of better ways to do things. They where not that hidebound.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the states?

not only no, but **** no.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the states?

I say no.Plus I do not think it would really make a difference one way or the other if the states or the people choose their senators.The same quality of people would be chosen no matter what.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Apparently we need a little history lesson since you seem confused. The method of selecting senators was changed 100 years ago this year. It was changed by amending the constitution, using the procedure the founding fathers set out. The allowed for an amendment process because they knew they where not perfect, and because they knew the times they would be a changin'. Now, how many of the founding fathers where alive to see the effects o9f direct elections of senators? Based on that, why would I feel bound by their opinions when I can look at the results myself and form my own opinion?

I seriously think the founding fathers would have a desire to kick the ass of any one who suggested we should hold them as holy and ignore any evidence of better ways to do things. They where not that hidebound.


well you seem to be running off from the op, and that is "should we repeal the 17th", ...and we should........the founders wanted no one, few, groups, of all of the people to have all direct power.

do you believe that if the people have all the power, which is democracy ,they themselves cannot be corrupt and not use that power against their fellow citizens...because that is actually what democracy does, and the founders knew that, that is why they did not create such a form of government.

the house is the representation of the people, and their interest, the senate the representation of the states, and their interest, since both have separate interest, no single entity has all the power, this helps to prevent tyranny, which comes when power is concentrated only in one, be that a person ,group, of all of the people.

never will i understand why people of today think democracy is great, and they have no clue what it is, yet they act as thought they are wiser then the founders on forms of government.

when your senator comes back to your state, ..does he visit the state legislature and ask their problems.......no!, he does not care about state interest, he cares about his own interest and, will the people keep electing him, and what can he do to get those on his side by promising them something on a ......national level.

because of the 17th amendment our constitution this has made our government more centralized, and bound to corruption, because senator can be easily bought, by buying just him, .......before the 17th, any special interest /faction would have to buy influence of a whole state legislature to get the senator to vote there way.

can you imagine how much harder it is to buy a senators vote before the 17th, since it is the state legislators is who directs the senator how to vote, the senator is not free to vote his own way ,he has to vote the way the state tells him to ------>so he votes in the states interest.

CA has 80 people in its state legislature,...... so think of how hard it would be for exxon /mobil to get your senators who if the state had the power again, to control the senators vote. instead of buying two senators to get their vote, they would have to try to buy 80 people votes, and do this in every state, ....their lobbying affords, and time would be huge, as well and the billions they would have to spend. this is why the 17th needs to be gone, so we would not longer have a centralized place where lobbyist can go to buy votes, from out senators.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Of course not. States don't need representation. People need representation.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

well you seem to be running off from the op, and that is "should we repeal the 17th", ...and we should........the founders wanted no one, few, groups, of all of the people to have all direct power.

do you believe that if the people have all the power, which is democracy ,they themselves cannot be corrupt and not use that power against their fellow citizens...because that is actually what democracy does, and the founders knew that, that is why they did not create such a form of government.

the house is the representation of the people, and their interest, the senate the representation of the states, and their interest, since both have separate interest, no single entity has all the power, this helps to prevent tyranny, which comes when power is concentrated only in one, be that a person ,group, of all of the people.

never will i understand why people of today think democracy is great, and they have no clue what it is, yet they act as thought they are wiser then the founders on forms of government.

when your senator comes back to your state, ..does he visit the state legislature and ask their problems.......no!, he does not care about state interest, he cares about his own interest and, will the people keep electing him, and what can he do to get those on his side by promising them something on a ......national level.

because of the 17th amendment our constitution this has made our government more centralized, and bound to corruption, because senator can be easily bought, by buying just him, .......before the 17th, any special interest /faction would have to buy influence of a whole state legislature to get the senator to vote there way.

can you imagine how much harder it is to buy a senators vote before the 17th, since it is the state legislators is who directs the senator how to vote, the senator is not free to vote his own way ,he has to vote the way the state tells him to ------>so he votes in the states interest.

CA has 80 people in its state legislature,...... so think of how hard it would be for exxon /mobil to get your senators who if the state had the power again, to control the senators vote. instead of buying two senators to get their vote, they would have to try to buy 80 people votes, and do this in every state, ....their lobbying affords, and time would be huge, as well and the billions they would have to spend. this is why the 17th needs to be gone, so we would not longer have a centralized place where lobbyist can go to buy votes, from out senators.

I am aware of what the founders wanted. I am also aware that not everything the founders wanted is relevant today. The 17th was passed for a reason, and it was a good decision to do so.

Furthermore, if an individual is for sale, it does not matter who places him in power, he is for sale. Trying to suggest that otherwise is silly.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

I am aware of what the founders wanted. I am also aware that not everything the founders wanted is relevant today. The 17th was passed for a reason, and it was a good decision to do so.

Furthermore, if an individual is for sale, it does not matter who places him in power, he is for sale. Trying to suggest that otherwise is silly.


the founders hated democracy be it direct or representative, all one has to do is read the founders, becuase they state their distaste for both kinds.........but people WILL NOT READ THEM.


So by what your saying, you a big supporter of democracy, which the founders hated and wanted to void for our government, becuase democracy is very factious/special interest oriented, and serves, the rich and powerful ,corporations, and special interst group, which care nothing of the general welfare, ..but there own welfare.

John Adams wrote in 1806: "I once thought our Constitution was quasi or mixed government, but they (Republicans) have now made it, to all intents and purposes, in virtue, in spirit, and in effect, a democracy. We are left without resources but in our prayers and tears, and have nothing that we can do or say, but the Lord have mercy on us."

democracy is the most vile from of government--james madsion

“Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” -John Adams, 1814

“The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind.” -Thomas Jefferson, 1790

Democracy is indispensable to socialism.”- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

“Democracy is the road to Socialism.”- Karl Marx

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

“Between a republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” -Chief Justice John Marshall

Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

John Adams: letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Of course not. States don't need representation. People need representation.

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).
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

The original purpose of senators was to represent the STATE not the people. You already have a representative, why do you need another 2 where your power to remove or elect them is much further diluted hence they are not nearly accountable. Were as when the state elected them they were accountable to the legislative body of that state, and therefor even MORE accountable. The states no longer are represented directly as an entity as they were before. States have interests that differ from that of the populous at large hence why they need to be represented directly, as originally intended.

Maybe if we redraw all the State districts to eliminate all gerrymandering first, we could get representation the way it was originally intended in the House. Only then would we even think of letting State representatives choose Senators. The way it is now the Senate is the only body that even remotely represents the people of the State, why would we ever give that up?
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

Maybe if we redraw all the State districts to eliminate all gerrymandering first, we could get representation the way it was originally intended in the House. Only then would we even think of letting State representatives choose Senators. The way it is now the Senate is the only body that even remotely represents the people of the State, why would we ever give that up?

the senate is not supposed to represent the people, .......it supposed to represent the states.

why would you have the house represent the people and then the senate represent the people, you have the same power the people in both chambers of congress, the founders did not create such a system for a reason....to divide power, ............divided power cannot become tyrannical.
 
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?
the senate is not supposed to represent the people, .......it supposed to represent the states.

why would you have the house represent the people and then the senate represent the people, you have the same power the people in both chambers of congress, the founders did not create such a system for a reason....to divide power, ............divided power cannot become tyrannical.
 
Re: Should the choosing of Senators be taken from the people and given back to the st

the senate is not supposed to represent the people, .......it supposed to represent the states.

why would you have the house represent the people and then the senate represent the people, you have the same power the people in both chambers of congress, the founders did not create such a system for a reason....to divide power, ............divided power cannot become tyrannical.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom