Seventeenth Amendment

[American]

No. Why would we want the 17th Amendment repealed? Do we want a nation ruled by a handful of states? California, New York, Texas, Florida, and a couple others would have all the say? States like Alaska, Wyoming, Delaware, New Hampshire are just screwed?

WTF are you talking about. It's about how Senators are elected.

 

[Nickyjo]

We have been through this argument before Cardinal and you lost.

Democrats conduct massive voter/election fraud, especially in big city areas where they have unsupervised control.

Any honest/sane person would rather have farmers deciding elections than that.

Even today but especially during the campaign President Trump could hold a rally at any place & time he wants and fill a Sports stadium.

Hillary was consistently leaving high school gyms half empty. Even with Beyoncé next to her Hillary could not draw a crowd any where close to Trumps average.

To actually think Hillary was anyone's popular choice is pure stupidity.

"Democrats conduct massive voter/election fraud." Evidence please.

 

[LesGovt]

You would get more relevant responses and votes if you were clearer about what part of the 17th amendment you had a problem with, exactly.

I want to return to the original text of the Constitution.

 

[Cardinal]

I want to return to the original text of the Constitution.

I think I've put enough work into getting a more detailed explanation out of you. If you want to remain ambiguous that's your call.

 

[LesGovt]

Vague OP's beget vague responses, which beget likely off-topic responses to said vague responses, which beget further off-topic back-and-forths like the one you and I are currently having.

Threads that stay on topic past the first page tend to have a clean presentation of the issue, the problem with the issue, a possible solution to that issue and a question that sparks an interesting dialogue. And now you and I are further derailing the thread with a discussion on how to create a good thread. This is not your fault, mind you, but Lesgovt's.

Do you have anything productive to add to the discussion?

 

[LesGovt]

I think I've put enough work into getting a more detailed explanation out of you. If you want to remain ambiguous that's your call.

You have not put any work into anything. You are just a whiner who likes to take shots at people or people's ideas you disagree with. Tough toots! This is for those who don't know or don't want to look it up, what the original text was that was changed by the Seventeenth Amendment:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." - Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States."

Since the State legislature would be effective upon the repeal, the state legislatures would be able to fill vacancies. Complete repeal works just fine.

 

[LesGovt]

Yes it would promote more discussion than would discussing the Electoral College.

I can now see what the next poll is. LOL!

 

[polisciguy]

Yes, reducing impact voters can have on the federal government is something I’d like to see.

 

[Kreton]

Depends on what you would want to replace it with. Something with fewer senators but keeping each state equal and adding in term limits and banning lobbying? Sure I'd go for it.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Do we want a nation ruled by farmers? The red states should have all the say in spite of having a minority of the votes? States like Vermont, California, and Washington are just screwed?

You can apply that logic both ways, and yours is definitely weaker.

Do we want a country ruled by LA or NYC?

As usual....you see things through a thin slit.

 

[Nickyjo]

I do. Senators for the most part don't give a darn what the people of their want or don't want. They just fall in line with their political party. Straight party line voting. If these senators were appointed and responsible to their state legislatures, they would do a better job or representing their state than their political party. After all, it is the House that is suppose to represent the people, the senate the states.

No, the Senate would represent the corporations that would control the legislatures. Repealing 17 was a John Birch Society theme decades ago, surfacing recently in a book by Mark Levin, (who also proposes the obvious con of term limits.). Pretty transparent right wing wet dream. The Senate is and has been an anti-democratic factor since the founding. The Dakotas have four senators and fewer people than Brooklyn. (No offense intended.). Might have made some sense when there 13 of us and people feared Virginia would control everything. As things stand now, it would make more sense for California where I live to break up into 4-5 states at least.

 

[Southern Dad]

Depends on what you would want to replace it with. Something with fewer senators but keeping each state equal and adding in term limits and banning lobbying? Sure I'd go for it.

Why do you want to ban term limits? Do you like laws that take choices away from you? Since the majority of the voters decide they want the incumbent to stay, you want to have laws to take that choice from them? Can't beat them, change the rules.

 

[Kreton]

Why do you want to ban term limits? Do you like laws that take choices away from you? Since the majority of the voters decide they want the incumbent to stay, you want to have laws to take that choice from them? Can't beat them, change the rules.

The majority of Americans do not want incumbents to stay. Look at how well received congress is. The issue is American people are too stupid, scared and lazy to fix it.

 

[Southern Dad]

The majority of Americans do not want incumbents to stay. Look at how well received congress is. The issue is American people are too stupid, scared and lazy to fix it.

The majority of American VOTERS want incumbents to stay. The rest don't matter, any way. Since they can't be motivated to change it, you want laws to do it? We'll have a House and Senate full of political novices?

 

[radcen]

Random thoughts...

- If every state has two Senators, that's just dumb to suggest a handful would control everything. One, urban states are fewer than rural states. Two, states are competitive, they don't always have the same needs and wants as other similar states. Three, and domination would be like it is now, seniority and individual personality over demographics.

- If anything, it's the House that people should worry about one demographic dominating the other, as it's not balanced with two each but is proportional, and it doesn't happen their, either. It still comes down to seniority and personality.

- How the hell did the EC get caught up in this?

 

[radcen]

The majority of Americans do not want incumbents to stay. Look at how well received congress is. The issue is American people are too stupid, scared and lazy to fix it.

If that were true there'd be much more turnover. Don't always trust what people say, trust what they do.

 

[Kreton]

The majority of American VOTERS want incumbents to stay. The rest don't matter, any way. Since they can't be motivated to change it, you want laws to do it? We'll have a House and Senate full of political novices?

Couldn't be any worse that what we've had for the past decade +

 

[Kreton]

If that were true there'd be much more turnover. Don't always trust what people say, trust what they do.

I trust that the general public is scared because of what politicians tell them will happen if they elect change, and are too stupid and lazy to go beyond that.

 

[Waddy]

Two senators from each state elected by their state voters is a good system. It puts a check on the big states running over the smaller states. And our democracy needs checks and balances.

 

[radcen]

Two senators from each state elected by their state voters is a good system. It puts a check on the big states running over the smaller states. And our democracy needs checks and balances.

Which is exactly why the concept extends to having Senators appointed by the states... check and balances... people's interest (House) vs State's interests (Senate). Both have interests and now the balance has been tossed out the window.

 

[Waddy]

Which is exactly why the concept extends to having Senators appointed by the states... check and balances... people's interest (House) vs State's interests (Senate). Both have interests and now the balance has been tossed out the window.

The state's interest and the state voter's interest should be one and the same. The state legislature is elected by those same voters, so your point is a distinction without a difference.

 

[radcen]

The state's interest and the state voter's interest should be one and the same. The state legislature is elected by those same voters, so your point is a distinction without a difference.

Yes and no. In theory. One of the insidious results of the states no longer having a portion of the balance is that the feds quite often pass legislation that binds the states to pay for (aka "unfunded mandates")... and the states have no part of the process that obligated them to these costs. And the people don't really mind because 1) they want stuff, and 2) they think someone else is paying for it. If the states had a reasonable seat at the table unfunded mandates would be much less common.

 

[calamity]

Do you favor an amendment to rescind the Seventeenth Amendment?

Typical conservative can't abide by the people electing our leaders. Why am I not surprised?

 

[radcen]

Typical conservative can't abide by the people electing our leaders. Why am I not surprised?

Countered by... typical liberal unable to grasp the consequences of how and why things are set up and done.

 

[Mycroft]

Do you favor an amendment to rescind the Seventeenth Amendment?

I don't see the difference if it's repealed or not. Either way it's voters who matter and right now, the voters are idiots.