Posted on 11/10/2010 7:26:53 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Compare our country with others that are strictly Democratic countries. Look at what the power structure is in their countries. In the US, we have the right to remove our government and replace it (just an example). Look at England, France, Germany, Italy. I believe we are about the only true Republic.
They are not talking about a governor appointing a Senator, but the entire legislature. Surely a few hundred people can be trusted to put thwart the control of one man. It also would guard against the apathy of voters in local elections. Their votes would mean so much more.
Lots of good arguments for repeal, but my concern is that it would only be used by Democrats to override “advisory” public votes won by Republicans.
Thanks for the ping, dear TEXOKIE!
There are several amendments that should and need to be repealed.
Voter apathy in moderation is a fine thing in our Republic. Only the actually motivated (and hopefully informed and motivated) bother going to the polls. Their votes would mean less if the 17th were repealed, as their vote would only indirectly appoint a Senator, they would vote for a State Legislator who would (in back room deals) vote for a Senator.
Sounds like a pretty good idea.
In a Democracy all things are subject to popular vote. Popular vote determines the direction of the government and the government has absolute power to enact “the will of the people”.
“Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch”
I thought Prohibition was ratified later than that.
We could not go far wrong if we repealed every amendment added since the BoR was ratified.
We probably should repeal all amendments passed between 1900 and 1920. Each one of them was a progressive trap that has slowly destroyed our representative republic (excluding the 18th, but that has already been repealed).
Probably? I’d say most definitely! It’s key to restoring the system to some degree of sanity. More importantly it would greatly augment the degree of “local” control, (throught the state legislatures) over the monster the Fed Gov’t has become and of equal importance, it would return meaningful power, (and accountablility) to the political parties thus helping to arrest Senator’s inclinations to move against their Party’s principle. The 17th amendment was really all about expanding “democracy” (little “d”) to place more power in the hands of the people which was a self serving move to allow parties to buy off special interest groups to further their agenda. Today that principle has come to mean, for example, the fostering of the open borders policy by the Dems because they believe it increases their voter base.
“Under the original arrangement, senators had strong incentives to protect federalism. They recognized that their reelection depended on pleasing state legislators who preferred that power be kept close to home. Whereas House members were considered representatives of the people, senators were considered ambassadors of their state governments to the federal government and, like national ambassadors to foreign countries, were subject to instruction by the parties they represented (although not to recall if they refused to follow instructions). And they tended to act accordingly, ceding to the national government only the power necessary to perform its enumerated functions, such as fighting wars and building interstate infrastructure. Moreover, when the federal government expanded to address a crisis (such as war), it quickly retreated to its intended modest level after the crisis had passed. Today, as historian Robert Higgs has observed, federal expansion creates a “ratchet effect.”
Pretty much says it all.
Right now most people have no idea who represents them at a local level.
The 17th absolutely needs to go, but it will be a tough sell given the lib media’s railing against anyone who proposes such a thing. State’s rights have been trampled and this is a step towards undoing some of that damage. The House and Senate at this time too closely mirror one another.
You’d still have corruption but that’s easier to control and can be more quickly dealt with at the state level. There would be some issues at the state level to be dealt with but the states would be better served with the 17th gone.
Right, our Senators are the worst. But to have to depend on the Legislature to boot them out, that seems to me to be even worse. With the gerrymandering of districts ensuring that the libs live in Sacto forevermore, it just seems like it would double the difficulty.
In my dreams, huh?
If you read about the history of the 17th, this is exactly what you will find. Direct election of Senators was intended to minimize special interest influence. What the 17th did not anticipate is that special interest pressure would be applied through the party caucus.
Quit picking on California. Look at what we have in Virginia.
Seems the senate only represents the big liberal cities.
Two-edged sword. For some states, the pre-17th method would be just fine. But for other states (including here in Arkansas), we would have two Democrat Senators instead of our split pair (thank you voters for booting Blanche!).
I think you’re right, and the reason that has happened is because people no longer think any real authority rests at the state and local level. All the focus now is on Washington because the state’s have surrendered that control.
For most people right now the local and state races are an afterthought and that’s just the opposite of the way it should be.
Excellent article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.