• 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!

Repeal the 17th Amendment?

Rich2018 said:
So if the designers never intended Senators to be the voice of the people within their state, who were they supposed to be the voice of ?

The legislatures of their state ?
Click to expand...

Rich, that's correct, the Senators represent the legislature of the State they represent. This was why the State legislatures appointed the Senators prior to the 17th amendment. Did the people have a voice is this, kind of in an indirect manner, they were the ones that elected the State legislatures into office, so they have an indirect influence as to who would best serve as Senator through input to their local State Representative and Senator.

Supremelaw pretty much summed up the role of the Senate and why it was created in post #224.
 
supremeLaw said:
Rich, our other conversation is a bit more involved, I’ll get to that later but wanted you to know I didn’t forgot. I enjoy your educated replies, difficult questions and that you have a good attitude when responding. You also address most questions I ask. With the niceties out of the way, I’ll get to the states being represented.
One major reasons, maybe the main reason, that these states created the federal government was to represent them, collectively, in foreign affairs. States had import/export situations which might require treaties or tariffs. of course the 13 colonies together as one army is more fierce than Rhode Island’s individual army. And to that, they wanted to make sure each state was well represented in these dealings. The federal government collected taxes from the state, they had a direct interaction when the federal government needed funding. These and many other issues are state issues, and to that, the states needed a significant amount of federal representation. The 17th amendment is not entirely to blame of course.
Click to expand...

Then there's no need to have two senators, the state governors could simply form a council.

The problem I see is that it is inherently undemocratic to have legislators who are appointed and not elected by the people.

An elected Senate is the best compromise.

I am not a registered voter, but if I were, I'd want to be able to vote out a senator I don't like, not have him appointed and do whatever the state governor wants. He/she basically becomes a delegate not a representative.

I cannot understand why anyone would want a legislator not accountable to the people.
 
Terryj said:
Rich, that's correct, the Senators represent the legislature of the State they represent. This was why the State legislatures appointed the Senators prior to the 17th amendment. Did the people have a voice is this, kind of in an indirect manner, they were the ones that elected the State legislatures into office, so they have an indirect influence as to who would best serve as Senator through input to their local State Representative and Senator.

Supremelaw pretty much summed up the role of the Senate and why it was created in post #224.
Click to expand...

This may be preaching heresy but the states do not need any representation in Congress

Ask yourself this, as a citizen of the USA, what benefit do you get from having senators elected/appointed by a state legislature versus elected by popular vote within their state ?

Yes the state legislature has more influence and thus more political power but at the expense of the ordinary citizen.
 
Rich, I have to ask you this question, do you understand the fundamental nature of the federal government, it constitutional duties and the responsibilities it has to the people and to the states? For those are the reasons why we have a House of Representatives and a Senate. They are two distinct bodies of congress with each one having it own duties, the Senate allows the States participation in the operation of the federal government and the House allows for the Peoples participation in the operation of the federal government.
 
Terryj said:
Rich, I have to ask you this question, do you understand the fundamental nature of the federal government, it constitutional duties and the responsibilities it has to the people and to the states?
Click to expand...

Yes


For those are the reasons why we have a House of Representatives and a Senate. They are two distinct bodies of congress with each one having it own duties, the Senate allows the States participation in the operation of the federal government and the House allows for the Peoples participation in the operation of the federal government.
Click to expand...


OK


But my question remains:
"what benefit do you get from having senators elected/appointed by a state legislature versus elected by popular vote within their state ?"
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes





OK


But my question remains:
"what benefit do you get from having senators elected/appointed by a state legislature versus elected by popular vote within their state ?"
Click to expand...

Rich, the benefit of have them appointed would be they would be beholden to the State instead of a political party. They would be subject to recall at anytime during their appointment if they failed to represent their State legislature. It would also reduce the career politician status in the Senate.

I also believe that Senators and Representatives should be paid by the State they represent and not by the federal government.
 
Last edited:
Terryj said:
Rich, the benefit of have them appointed would be they would be beholden to the State instead of a political party.
Click to expand...

That might benefit the state but how does it benefit the voter ?

(more than direct election that is)



They would be subject to recall at anytime during their appointment if they failed to represent their State legislature. It would also reduce the career politician status in the Senate.

I also believe that Senators and Representatives should be paid by the State they represent and not by the federal government.
Click to expand...


That means they would be the state's representative but rather their delegate.
 
Rich2018 said:
That might benefit the state but how does it benefit the voter ?

(more than direct election that is)






That means they would be the state's representative but rather their delegate.
Click to expand...

Rich, what you fail to understand is the Senators were never intended to represent the voter, the voter is represented by the House.

Rich, that is what a Senator is suppose to do, represent the State or as you might say, the States appointed delegate in the federal government.
 
Terryj said:
Rich, what you fail to understand is the Senators were never intended to represent the voter, the voter is represented by the House.

Rich, that is what a Senator is suppose to do, represent the State or as you might say, the States appointed delegate in the federal government.
Click to expand...


I can see what was intended

I just find the concept wholly objectionable

Once again, as a citizen, which system benefits you the most and why ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom