Repeal the 17th amendment to the U.S. constitution

[Mortshnefran]

The 17th amendment provided for the direct election of U.S. senators. The constitution as originally written created the bicameral legislature for a reason. the house was to represent the voice of the people, and the senate to represent the states. By removing the voice of the state governments from the federal government, it has decreased the power of the state and increased the power of the fed. I say repeal the 17th amendment and return a much needed check on the unquestioned authority of federal government.

[Maurepas]

While I wouldnt mind the Fed's power taken down a peg, this strikes me as not being the way to do it...

it would strip power from individual people and hand it to the State Governments, afterall, my state's governor is almost the polar opposite of my own political beliefs, yet at the present I have the ability to vote for a Senator that more clearly represents my beliefs...

without the 17th amendment, I would not have this power...

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I have no idea what you're talking about so here's a painting of Sarah Palin with pancakes on her head:

[Atreath]

While I wouldnt mind the Fed's power taken down a peg, this strikes me as not being the way to do it...

it would strip power from individual people and hand it to the State Governments, afterall, my state's governor is almost the polar opposite of my own political beliefs, yet at the present I have the ability to vote for a Senator that more clearly represents my beliefs...

without the 17th amendment, I would not have this power...

That was why the founding fathers instituted the house of representatives. The house was to be the check and balance for the senate. The senate as it stands today is just a smaller, more powerful copy of the house. Thus making it an ultimately pointless institution.

[Galloism]

I have no idea what you're talking about so here's a painting of Sarah Palin with pancakes on her head:

Dammit LG. You've bested me again.

I shall return... I shall return. *throws down a smoke bomb, vanishes*

[UNIverseVERSE]

You misunderstand what the 17th does. It increases not the power of the Federal Government, but the power of the people. Explain why it is needed to take power from the people, in what is supposed to be some sort of 'democracy'.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Dammit LG. You've bested me again.

I shall return... I shall return. *throws down a smoke bomb, vanishes*

And I shall be waiting!

[Mortshnefran]

While I wouldnt mind the Fed's power taken down a peg, this strikes me as not being the way to do it...

it would strip power from individual people and hand it to the State Governments, afterall, my state's governor is almost the polar opposite of my own political beliefs, yet at the present I have the ability to vote for a Senator that more clearly represents my beliefs...

without the 17th amendment, I would not have this power...

it was left up to the state as how they were to choose, but generally it was by appointment of the state legislature not by the governor.

[Atreath]

America is a republic not a democracy. At best you could say it was a representative democracy.

[Khadgar]

Why should I trust the state government any more than I do the federal? The more elected officials that have to answer to my whims the better represented my beliefs are.

[Grays Harbor]

I would have to say no to this idea because prior to this amendment Senators tended to be political hacks who were appointed by State legislators for overtly political reasons and was used, in many cases, as a reward system for loyal party performance or for ponying up large campaign donations to the party, much like most ambassadorships have nearly always been.

I honestly do not see how reverting to a system of back-room deal making could benefit anybody except those more interested in advancing dogmatic partisan politics.

[Maurepas]

While I wouldnt mind the Fed's power taken down a peg, this strikes me as not being the way to do it...

it would strip power from individual people and hand it to the State Governments, afterall, my state's governor is almost the polar opposite of my own political beliefs, yet at the present I have the ability to vote for a Senator that more clearly represents my beliefs...

without the 17th amendment, I would not have this power...

That was why the founding fathers instituted the house of representatives. The house was to be the check and balance for the senate. The senate as it stands today is just a smaller, more powerful copy of the house. Thus making it an ultimately pointless institution.

not imo, I believe that the Senate was there to compensate for the lack of power Smaller states have in the House, for example, MS currently has 4 representatives in the House of Representatives...

We have very little power in the institution, considering that say, Texas has 32 representatives...

In the Senate, however, Mississippi has traditionally enjoyed a greater position of authority, (Jeff Davis, Trent Lott) because everyone has equal representation...

See the Connecticut Compromise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise

[Newer Burmecia]

What's to say that senators chosen by a state legislature would want a smaller government than one chosen by the people in an election? The incentive for pork, the ties of party and support of a particular ecenomic ideology would apply to an appointed senator as much as an elected one.

Besides, if you want smaller government, vote for the candidate that supportes smaller government.

[Newer Burmecia]

In the Senate, however, Mississippi has traditionally enjoyed a greater position of authority, (Jeff Davis, Trent Lott) because everyone has equal representation...

I lol'd.

[Maurepas]

In the Senate, however, Mississippi has traditionally enjoyed a greater position of authority, (Jeff Davis, Trent Lott) because everyone has equal representation...

I lol'd.

Hey, its true, lol...

[Mortshnefran]

Why should I trust the state government any more than I do the federal? The more elected officials that have to answer to my whims the better represented my beliefs are.

you only need to trust the state government to be self interested. and as the point of the senate was to reflect the interest of the states...

[Bluth Corporation]

You misunderstand what the 17th does. It increases not the power of the Federal Government, but the power of the people. Explain why it is needed to take power from the people, in what is supposed to be some sort of 'democracy'.

Because "democracy" is not important. The masses (including, apparently, you) have fetishized a form of government, forgetting that the form of government is only a means to an end and not an end in itself. What actually matters is what government does; the particular power structures by which it decides what to do and how to do it are secondary.

Giving more "power to the people," in this case, removed an important bulwark against federal encroachments on individual liberties.

[Bluth Corporation]

What's to say that senators chosen by a state legislature would want a smaller government than one chosen by the people in an election?

They wouldn't. That wasn't the point.

The idea is that state governments and federal governments each have their own defined scopes of power. Presumably, state governments like their power and want to keep it, so the idea of the Senate was that the legislatures would send Senators who would fight against federal encroachments on state power.

That's not to say that state governments wouldn't enact those measures on their own, but they'd be done at the state level where far fewer people would be affected.

[Khadgar]

Why should I trust the state government any more than I do the federal? The more elected officials that have to answer to my whims the better represented my beliefs are.

you only need to trust the state government to be self interested. and as the point of the senate was to reflect the interest of the states...

I say this with as much sincerity as I can muster: FUCK THE STATE!

I don't give two shit's about Indiana's interests, or rather the interests of our politicians.

[UNIverseVERSE]

Because "democracy" is not important. The masses (including, apparently, you) have fetishized a form of government, forgetting that the form of government is only a means to an end and not an end in itself. What actually matters is what government does; the particular power structures by which it decides what to do and how to do it are secondary.

Giving more "power to the people," in this case, removed an important bulwark against federal encroachments on individual liberties.

Oh fook off.

Most of the States have spent just as much time as the federal government hammering individual liberties There's no reason to expect that senators appointed by a State government will stick up for individual liberties any more than those voted in by the people. Indeed, one would expect that such senators are more likely to be in favour of increased government power.

[Atreath]

The senate was designed to be the voice of the state governments. The house was designed to make sure the state governments didn't abuse that power. Since the house is voted for in local districts. It would make sense that you have a higher chance of getting your voice heard from your representative than a senator that is voted for by the total population of a state that may or may not agree with your views. In which case I would argue to either repeal the 17th amendment or preferably abolish the senate.

If you're worried about lack of representation for a given state than introduce term limits instead. Regardless the status quo is simply ridiculous.

[Khadgar]

Oh fook off.

Most of the States have spent just as much time as the federal government hammering individual liberties There's no reason to expect that senators appointed by a State government will stick up for individual liberties any more than those voted in by the people. Indeed, one would expect that such senators are more likely to be in favour of increased government power.

You could likely count those who voluntarily gave up power rather than voting themselves more on one hand.

1) Cincinnatus
2) George Washington
3) ...

[Galloism]

The senate was designed to be the voice of the state governments. The house was designed to make sure the state governments didn't abuse that power. Since the house is voted for in local districts. It would make sense that you have a higher chance of getting your voice heard from your representative than a senator that is voted for by the total population of a state that may or may not agree with your views. In which case I would argue to either repeal the 17th amendment or preferably abolish the senate.

If you're worried about lack of representation for a given state than introduce term limits instead. Regardless the status quo is simply ridiculous.

They won't until they get one of these:

[Bluth Corporation]

Most of the States have spent just as much time as the federal government hammering individual liberties There's no reason to expect that senators appointed by a State government will stick up for individual liberties any more than those voted in by the people. Indeed, one would expect that such senators are more likely to be in favour of increased government power.

I addressed this already. Please pay attention next time.

[Atreath]

They won't until they get one of these:

OOOH! Shiny!