Show of HandsShow of Hands

skinner October 31st, 2014 9:10pm

Is it preferable for US Senators to be elected by a majority of their state's population or to be appointed by the state legislature?

6 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

Zod Above Pugetropolis
11/02/14 1:08 pm

Elected. It's why we changed it a long time ago (17th amendment).

Krystina Let Freedom Reign
11/02/14 1:05 pm

They were appointed for a long time, but it was changed to election based for good reason. With the corruption in today's politics, I wouldn't trust appointments to save my soul.

AbandonedAccnt Not here.
11/02/14 1:44 pm

Disagree. Federalism was destroyed with the 17th amendment and it would be nice if the state legislators had a representative in Washington safeguarding states' rights. I could go deal with one form of corruption if it offset another and brought

AbandonedAccnt Not here.
11/02/14 1:45 pm

the power back closer to the voter. It's easier to monitor and control state politics than it is federal politics, imho.

Krystina Let Freedom Reign
11/02/14 2:17 pm

Well, no surprise I agree with pretty much everything you said. But they got rid of the appointments due to the corruption & the fact that the corruption resulted in the states essentially having no representation. If it was that corrupt back then, I

Krystina Let Freedom Reign
11/02/14 2:17 pm

can't even fathom how corrupt it would be now. So, while I agree with you, if the corruption outweighs the benefit, which it seemed to when they made the change, it would probably still outweigh the benefit now, don't you think?

AbandonedAccnt Not here.
11/02/14 2:21 pm

I think the "corruption" was overstated as this change was part of a populist movement designed to further a liberal agenda. The corruption then was analogous to the "healthcare crisis" that democrats used to push obamacare.

AbandonedAccnt Not here.
11/02/14 2:21 pm

The false pretense of "crisis" isn't a new strategy for ushering in big change.

Krystina Let Freedom Reign
11/02/14 2:30 pm

Hmm, interesting. I can certainly see that being the case and you might be right. I'm no history buff, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was more to it and what I've read on it is hyperbole. Either way, I'd go for appointment IF it truly gave the

Krystina Let Freedom Reign
11/02/14 2:30 pm

states more power. The IF is the big piece of it. I'd want to do more research on it though because, based on this conversation, what I know of it thus far may not be the whole story.

AbandonedAccnt Not here.
11/02/14 2:37 pm

Corruption will always be a problem. Steps can be taken to address it without "fundamentally" changing our governmental structure. Structurally speaking the government was better designed before the 17th amendment. See the Federalist Papers for a

AbandonedAccnt Not here.
11/02/14 2:38 pm

Good read in federalism and why it was setup the way it was. Keep a dictionary nearby.

Mattwall1
11/01/14 7:58 am

Elected. I can fully understand why the founders had the senate appointed by the state legislatures, but I also think it's actually better for all involved if the senate and the house are both directly elected by the people

sojourner present
10/31/14 5:57 pm

The argument against the electoral college is usually that it does not represent the actual will of the people. Applying this same logic here, one should be happy that we, the people, have a more direct say over our federal government.

Reply
BeachSt Coastal Virginia
10/31/14 3:53 pm

Appointed, but as partisan as politicians are I would stick with the 17th amendment for awhile.

Reply
BeachSt Coastal Virginia
10/31/14 3:54 pm

However, I remain opposed to the 17th amendment.

sojourner present
10/31/14 5:52 pm

Until we get rid of gerrymandering, I'm sticking with the 17th!

BeachSt Coastal Virginia
10/31/14 6:57 pm

Gerrymandering is not always bad.

sojourner present
10/31/14 7:12 pm

Example? I'm not a fan of manipulating districts to ensure on party domination, for either party. I'd prefer a neutral approach.

BeachSt Coastal Virginia
11/01/14 4:24 pm

Racial Gerrymandering in the south after Jim Crow. Outdated now, but served a purpose whence.

Iamamerican California
10/31/14 2:51 pm

California is already off the charts left wing. If we left it up to our state legislators to appoint senators, it would be even more disastrous.

BeachSt Coastal Virginia
10/31/14 3:55 pm

And? I don't campaign for you to lose your privilege to vote because you're a conservative. Can we have a better argument for the 17th amendment?

Iamamerican California
10/31/14 4:02 pm

Republicans can't get anything done in California as it is, ....we already have two very liberal senators. We our luck, they would find another Pelosi or two to send to DC. No thanks.

BeachSt Coastal Virginia
10/31/14 4:05 pm

The founding fathers got this one right. Senators represent the state; representatives represent the People. This isn't a chance for California to send more liberal senators...it's a chance for California to have a say...instead of its citizens.

Iamamerican California
10/31/14 4:33 pm

Who do you think runs California? It's certainly not equally lib and conservative. No one but an extreme lib would ever be appointed by this nutty state.

sojourner present
10/31/14 5:59 pm

Michigan has a majority dem population. Yet it is so gerrymandered as to be controlled by the reps at the state level. Repealing the 17th would give substantially less voice to the majority of Michigan voters.

sojourner present
10/31/14 6:02 pm

For example in our current senate race the polls have the dem up by more than 10%. Left to the legislature, the rep would be appointed.

USA1st
10/31/14 2:50 pm

The Senate was supposed to represent the state governments while the House was to represent the people. That's how it was meant to be, and that's how it should be.

Reply
Joshua77 Jesus is Lord
10/31/14 2:41 pm

The senate should represent the states.
The house should represent the people.

Reply