• 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
Populism in the US was not isolated to a ~30 year span in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. It's been with us since the founding. In any case the fact remains that the populists of the early 20th century first championed the idea of direct election of senators (in fact it was the self-named Populist Party that made it part of their platform!) Direct election is at its heart a very populist thing (in the sense that it increases the power of ordinary people over that of a privileged and self-interested elite.

Fast forward a century later and the most populist president in memory is revered by the same folks who denigrate the 17th as a disenfranchisement of the states (which it was). God I love politics!

You know except for those other populist Presidents (who have very little in actual common with each other or Trump) that you mentioned. Somehow I find it hard to trust your personal definition of who is a "populist".
 
If your first thought is how repeal of the 17th Amendment is how it would change the demographics of the Senate, then you are a partisan hack only interested in your own agenda, not the country's well-being.

The 17th Amendment upset the balance of power. The people already had (have) representation, the House of Representatives. Having Senators chosen by the state according to their own criteria gave the states roughly equal power within DC. That's not a small thing. As just one example, now when Congress wants to force an unfunded mandate on the states, there's no one to speak in the states defense. That's irresponsible.
 
If your first thought is how repeal of the 17th Amendment is how it would change the demographics of the Senate, then you are a partisan hack only interested in your own agenda, not the country's well-being.

The 17th Amendment upset the balance of power. The people already had (have) representation, the House of Representatives. Having Senators chosen by the state according to their own criteria gave the states roughly equal power within DC. That's not a small thing. As just one example, now when Congress wants to force an unfunded mandate on the states, there's no one to speak in the states defense. That's irresponsible.

The people who vote in those Senators are the state. That is what I don't get about the whole "states' rights" thing. People have rights, not states. If something is against "the states", then it is against the people (in some way) of that/those states, if it is a legitimate issue. What we have seen lately is the "states" being upset because the federal government takes the position of supporting individual rights over states' rights. Imagine that, rights for people rather than states who want to oppress them.
 
The text of the this particular amendment.

The direct election senators.... why is this so controversial now?

Originally, in the Constitution, the two senators from each state were nominated by state level politicians. They would pick someone, among their peers in the Legislature, who the majority of elected officials believed could best serve the interests of their state. This approach was very useful, because people, who do a similar the job, at the state level, know the nuance of the state's long term agenda. They are the best good judges for picking someone to represent their state's interests. He/she needs to be strong, assertive and a company/state man/woman.

It is like a having a hospital of Doctors, choose one person to represent them at an important conference. Again we have experts in the field, who are aware of long term needs, picking their champion, to maximize their collective chances.

When the 17th Amendment changed to Senators being picked by popular vote, the choice became based on the layman, instead of the experts. The layman does not understand the nuances, needed for the job. He needs to depend more on campaign propaganda, fake news, and lopsided opinion, so he can choose someone who may only help half the people in a two party state.

Let us go back to picking a doctor rom a hospital to represent the hospital at the conference. Instead of the using a doctor based vote, say we do this based on the vote of that year's patients. What does a patient know of the needs of the hospital and how do they know who is best suited to achieve this end? The result is a system wide dumb down and a representative who may be charismatic, but may not be the best negotiator in the land of sharks.

Another example is say we start with Microsoft needing to nominate and appoint a new chairman of the board. He will represent everyone. The people at the top, who have access to the bigger picture will pick someone who has the same vision. If we let 100,000 employees choose, you never know what you will get. People will tend to choose personality over competence. Mudslinging focuses on minutia in personality. This may not impact competence but it can be a job killer. The mob will also not choose the boring person, even if he/she is the most competent. They will prefer the handsome charismatic socialite, who never works. This is a recipe for decline.

The 17th Amendment was enacted at the same time as the first Federal income tax. These two bad ideas were used as negotiation trade offs because they complimented each other. What they did, combined, is hire more incompetent people for Senators, while increasing the federal budget, so nobody could see the dual problem developing; biased incompetence is very wasteful and needs constant money infusions.

If you look at the 2016 election, the DNC choice for presidential nomination was rigged for Hillary. The DNC went back to the elite and most informed, at the top, making the decision for the party. They did not trust the mob to make that decision. Then the second face of the two faces will appear when you speak of the 17th Amendment.
 
Last edited:
You know except for those other populist Presidents (who have very little in actual common with each other or Trump) that you mentioned. Somehow I find it hard to trust your personal definition of who is a "populist".
The people who championed the 17th self-described as populists. And I'm hardly the first person to think Trump ran on a populist message.
 
You know except for those other populist Presidents (who have very little in actual common with each other or Trump) that you mentioned. Somehow I find it hard to trust your personal definition of who is a "populist".
I don't know how anyone can consider Trump, who lowers taxes on the wealthy far more than anyone else (in terms of dollars and percent), is revolking policies that protect workers and the middle class, and backs all the policies desired by the corporations, is a populist.
 
I don't know how anyone can consider Trump, who lowers taxes on the wealthy far more than anyone else (in terms of dollars and percent), is revolking policies that protect workers and the middle class, and backs all the policies desired by the corporations, is a populist.

Trump seems to be rhetorically a populist, but operationally a fairly traditional Republican. But many still consider him a populist:

Donald Trump, the Perfect Populist
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-16/why-donald-trump-really-is-a-populist

Why Donald Trump Really Is a Populist - Bloomberg
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-the-perfect-populist-213697

Donald Trump and the Long Tradition of American Populism
Donald Trump and the Long Tradition of American Populism

Of course there are just as many articles claiming Trump is a faux populist.
 
We are still waiting for your list of many, thanks.

Rather than fall into your idiot trap, perhaps you would like to list all the things you can do here in the US legally... Legally would be things you can do without government permit or license as the need to have a permit or license indicates that the activity you are doing is illegal without government approval.
So tell me all the things you are "free to do". Some of the things you are not free to do is work and support yourself ( you must have SS card) travel, marry, open bank accounts, build a house, own a dog, have a business, own a gun, go to school, fish, hunt, own property, and about 100 more things that require government approval in the form of permit, license, or government tracking in some form. Yes keep telling yourself you are free if it helps you to tolerate your wage slave existence...
 
Calls for a Constitutional Amendment for direct election of Senators began as early as the 1820's.

Interestingly, the same decade as the election of the first populist US president. While the idea may have been introduced in the 1820's it didn't really get going until the populists of the early XXth took it and ran with it.
 
I did support DJ in election 2016's and now I just wants republican candidates: Ben Carson, Kasich, Ryan, Bannon or someelse better choosen President in the court in last month in 2018 and perfects replacing DJ him Facebook and CIA wanted too.
 
Get over it? That is why we are no longer a free country, it is not the fault of the people who took our freedoms, it is the fault of people who were not willing to stand up for them. People get the government they deserve.

Sovereign citizen alert...
 
Rather than fall into your idiot trap, perhaps you would like to list all the things you can do here in the US legally... Legally would be things you can do without government permit or license as the need to have a permit or license indicates that the activity you are doing is illegal without government approval.
So tell me all the things you are "free to do". Some of the things you are not free to do is work and support yourself ( you must have SS card) travel, marry, open bank accounts, build a house, own a dog, have a business, own a gun, go to school, fish, hunt, own property, and about 100 more things that require government approval in the form of permit, license, or government tracking in some form. Yes keep telling yourself you are free if it helps you to tolerate your wage slave existence...

Hmmmm...I am a free man upon the land, traveling without restriction in my conveyance and am not bound by any law created by the fascist fictional corporation known as the United States. TDC TDC TDC TDC!! :blastem:

I leave it to you to insert the colons and capitalization. :lamo
(Red ink used because that's important to sov-cits.)
 
Conservative republican Paul Ryan.

:rwbelepha :rwbelepha :rwbelepha
 
I see most of the discussion on this as so much nonsense.

This Amendment has been in place for 105 years now. So if it has support or not really does not matter at all.

This entire thread is little more then mental masturbation as far as I can tell.
 
Rather than fall into your idiot trap, perhaps you would like to list all the things you can do here in the US legally... Legally would be things you can do without government permit or license as the need to have a permit or license indicates that the activity you are doing is illegal without government approval.
So tell me all the things you are "free to do". Some of the things you are not free to do is work and support yourself ( you must have SS card) travel, marry, open bank accounts, build a house, own a dog, have a business, own a gun, go to school, fish, hunt, own property, and about 100 more things that require government approval in the form of permit, license, or government tracking in some form. Yes keep telling yourself you are free if it helps you to tolerate your wage slave existence...

We are still waiting for your list of many, thanks.
 
Apparently there are 19 other places.

https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index
I have traveled worldwide, and I can tell you that there are many places where the people have more freedom in their day to day lives than the people in the US.
What countries would those be?
We are still waiting for your list of many, thanks.

Please name them and the criteria used to determine that like has been asked in this thread.
 
Please name them and the criteria used to determine that like has been asked in this thread.

Quit being lazy and read the damn link. You want me to type your posts for you, too?
 
The text of the this particular amendment.



The direct election senators.... why is this so controversial now?

I don't like it because it effectively means in many states that large groups of people are shut out of the political process.

like in my state, where we have two extreme leftist senators even though the state legislature is far more moderate and bounces between the parties. I would far rather the state legislature choose senators because no one they choose would be as extreme as the two currently representing my state. There would also be incentive to horse trade, meaning that we'd probably end up getting a senator from Eastern Washington and a Senator from Western Washington, or a senator from Southwest Washington, instead of two extreme liberals from the same county.
 
The people who vote in those Senators are the state. That is what I don't get about the whole "states' rights" thing. People have rights, not states. If something is against "the states", then it is against the people (in some way) of that/those states, if it is a legitimate issue. What we have seen lately is the "states" being upset because the federal government takes the position of supporting individual rights over states' rights. Imagine that, rights for people rather than states who want to oppress them.

Well, no most federal mandates are not about "individual rights" they're about special rights for certain voting classes.

Also most people have virtually no working knowledge of government, or are extremely self interested to the point of ignoring the larger picture. Which is why a legislative assembly who understands having to government and meet certain obligations can sometimes make a better decision then masses of self-interested people.
 
So you can't? ok
It took you over a month to post that.

The top 10 jurisdictions in order were Switzerland, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Ireland, Australia, Finland, Norway, Denmark, and, tied at 9th place, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Selected countries rank as follows: Canada (11), Sweden (13), Germany (16), the United States (17), Japan (27), South Korea (29), France (33), Italy (35), Chile (37), South Africa (68), Mexico (73), Indonesia (78), Turkey (84), Kenya (89), Malaysia (97), India (102), United Arab Emirates (116), Russia (126), China (130), Nigeria (133), Pakistan (141), Zimbabwe (146), Saudi Arabia (149), Iran (154), Egypt (155), Venezuela (158), and Syria (159).

The criteria are within the link posted earlier, please read it, I don't have time for your drive-by nonsense.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom