• 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!

Who supports the 17th amendment

Do you support the 17th amendment

  • Total voters
    55
haymarket said:
Outside of a hardcore small group of right wingers, this is NOT at all controversial. They hate the 17th because it brings government closer to the people and they despise the vote of the people because they know they are a small minority whose radical ideas and whack job agenda goes nowhere with the people against them.
Click to expand...

Anti-17th amendment folks conveniently forget WHY President Theodore Roosevelt supported this amendment over 100 years ago ...
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Because the way our system of elections work, only 1/3 of the senate is up for reelection every election year, while the entire house is up for election every 2 years.
Click to expand...

Still not an answer. Why not every 2 years for all Senators? If it's all about the people and all that jazz.
 
blueliner7 said:
Popular election wasn't originally in the Constitution, hence the thread.
Click to expand...

I responded to your complaints about the 6-year term of Senators, certainly not part of the thread OP ...
 
blueliner7 said:
Still not an answer. Why not every 2 years for all Senators? If it's all about the people and all that jazz.
Click to expand...

And the continued answer is ... The Constitution. You need an amendment to change the ... 6-year term ...
 
NIMBY said:
I responded to your complaints about the 6-year term of Senators, certainly not part of the thread OP ...
Click to expand...

Actually, you responded to neither one.
 
blueliner7 said:
What difference does it make?
Click to expand...

Well, if it makes no difference (to you) then why not simply skip the expense and remove the Senate entirely?

The idea was to give even smaller (based on population) states a chance to matter as much as larger states. Obviously, if any state votes both yes and no on a given issue then they may as well have had their Senators just stay home.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Well, if it makes no difference (to you) then why not simply skip the expense and remove the Senate entirely?

The idea was to give even smaller (based on population) states a chance to matter as much as larger states. Obviously, if any state votes both yes and no on a given issue then they may as well have had their Senators just stay home.
Click to expand...

OK Chris, let's do that.
 
blueliner7 said:
Popular election wasn't originally in the Constitution, hence the thread.
Click to expand...

Women voting wasn't originally in The Constitution either. Neither was the 16th, another whipping boy for Conservatices ...
 
NIMBY said:
Women voting wasn't originally in The Constitution either. Neither was the 16th, another whipping boy for Conservatices ...
Click to expand...

The thread isn't about suffrage.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Well, if it makes no difference (to you) then why not simply skip the expense and remove the Senate entirely?

The idea was to give even smaller (based on population) states a chance to matter as much as larger states. Obviously, if any state votes both yes and no on a given issue then they may as well have had their Senators just stay home.
Click to expand...

Such as both GOP Senators in Iowa, Nebraska and Arizona voting against Harvey relief because Ryan and McConnell tied it to the debt ceiling ...
 
NIMBY said:
The thread isn't about a 6-year term for Senators, your initial diversion ...
Click to expand...

Not a diversion, a question. And you ignored the first point I made. Can I trust you to accurately repeat it or do I have to repeat it myself?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Because the way our system of elections work, only 1/3 of the senate is up for reelection every election year, while the entire house is up for election every 2 years.
Click to expand...

What we actually need is 3-year terms for the House so they can get something done during the middle year. And a one-term limit of 6-years for the POTUS. Perfect common denominator with 3 less elections every twelve years ...
 
blueliner7 said:
Not a diversion, a question. And you ignored the first point I made. Can I trust you to accurately repeat it or do I have to repeat it myself?
Click to expand...

Why the diversion to a 6-year term for Senators, which would require a Constitutional Amendment ???
 
NIMBY said:
Such as both GOP Senators in Iowa, Nebraska and Arizona voting against Harvey relief because Ryan and McConnell tied it to the debt ceiling ...
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the old "I have principles so long as I know that they won't affect the outcome or shutdown the almighty government" way of voting. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Ah yes, the old "I have principles so long as I know that they won't affect the outcome or shutdown the almighty government" way of voting. ;)
Click to expand...

Let's see how those 17 GOP Senators respond when their states are devastated, as well as the 90 GOP House members.

More and more federal GOPs are retiring next year, with new ones today, possibly even Sen. Corker ...
 
Years ago, if I remember this correctly, this was a John Birch Society issue. For them, the closer the US was to a "republic" as opposed to a "democracy" the better. Met with a Bircher once and had a long conversation. He believed that only property owners should be allowed to vote. As I understand it, his views represented an anti-democratic pro republican (principles, not parties) strain in US politics that is longstanding. Mark Levin includes repeal of 17 as part of his Liberty Amendments. He also wants Congressional term limits, which also limits the power of voters.

There has always been a "restrict the franchise" movement as part of conservative. The Senate, which gives more power (12 Senators) to several states with less than one million citizens with less total population than New York City which has no Senator. Other manifestations include voter ID laws, which sprung up shortly after the Supremes said that the Voting Rights Act was obsolete, the historic opposition to "one man one vote" principles.

In my cynical view, having state legislatures select Senators gives more power to business interests who are more easily able to influence them. In response, the poor and disenfranchised have tended to look to Washington where they can more easily exercise their power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom