INVITATION TO: repeal17 - A New Senate for America

Yahoo.com Discussion Group "Repeal17" ^ | Jan 4, 2002 | Category: Federal Politics

[Xthe17th]

repeal17 · A New Senate for America

Repeal 17 is an online group dedicated to legally repealing the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which began the direct election of the Senate. Here, we will discuss the benefits of a Senate that is once again appointed by the state legislatures or by some other means that will take the money and corruption out of that august and once-revered body and return balance to the nation's political system.

The purpose of the Repeal 17 Yahoo! group is to seek constructive feedback from those interested in repealing the 17th Amendment by Constitutional means, to decide on the single-most effective method to accomplish this goal, and to work actively towards forming an "off-line" group to achieve it.

[Xthe17th]

I just learned of this group and am cross-promoting both it and FR. They have 86 posts so far and have listed some good ideas and points of interest. I'm sure FReepers can enlighten the group further, and vice-versa towards achieving this very important goal.

If you're interested in the repeal of the 17th amendment, thus restoring power to the states and diminishing the control of the Federal government, please join us at this Yahoo.com newsgroup, Repeal17.

PS: Check my Freeper profile homepage for more information. Hope to see y'all there.

[Xthe17th]

SOVEREIGN STATE PINGS )))))))

[Torie]

Your puppy is doomed to die in its crib. Americans want more power to tame its legislators not less, and the thought of electing Senators via the mediocrities/kooks the inhabit state legislatures, would strike them as hilarious. and ludicrous. Find something more useful to do with your time. I mean it.

[Quix]

SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD IDEA to me.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

Repeal 17 is an online group dedicated to legally repealing the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which began the direct election of the Senate. Here, we will discuss the benefits of a Senate that is once again appointed by the state legislatures or by some other means that will take the money and corruption out of that august and once-revered body

By having the senate appointed by others, we rid ourselves of corruption. Wow! A pure Utopia just like the UN which is full of appointed officials. Is somebody smoking crack here or sump'em?

[Quix]

THOUGH I'M NOT FOND OF APPOINTMENTS.

I'd still prefer some sort of grass roots voting but States oriented somehow.

Perhaps the Legislature putting forth a slate of 4-8 candidates and citizens voting for them in a two step process. Limited campaigning with strict finance and time limits somehow.

And NO atnys allowed! We ought to have at least one house of government where atnys cannot control it at all.

And unless the State legislature votes by 70% majority to authorize it after 2/3rds of the 3rd term, the Senators could not serve more than 3 terms.

And, 50% of the taxes at state and Federal levels should be designatable by the taxpayer to major State or Federal departments or projects.

And 55% of the Federal Appeals Court justices; 5 out of 9 of the U.S. Suppreme Court Justices and 70% of the State Supreme Courts must be NON-atnys from a rotating sample of other strata and occupational categories.

And

And

And . . .

[steplock]

"SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD IDEA to me"

You must never have heard of the Banana Republik of Arkansas Legislature

[Quix]

I just think some drastic action is needed to wrest the Senate from the globalists etc.

I don't like appointments. I still think INFORMED and EDUCATED and PAYING ATTENTION and RESPONSIBLE GRASS ROOTS VOTERS must decide--but that's not exactly what we have either. Another problem to solve.

[Paleo Conservative]

Americans want more power to tame its legislators not less, and the thought of electing Senators via the mediocrities/kooks the inhabit state legislatures, would strike them as hilarious. and ludicrous.

It was precisely the 17th amendment that made state legisltures less important than they used to be.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

In principle the seventeenth Amendment should not have been ratified and should be repealed.

As a slightly less impractical matter, it would be well if an amendment could be passed to make the senators were made running mates of the governors. That could be promoted as a cost-saving measure in part, but its signal virtue is that the governor could not then divorce himself from a residue of responsibility for what happens in the Senate.

IOW, it would retain direct election, but still would link the Senate to the Governor's offices. The extreme version of this would be to make the Senate a virtual body of the state governors, transacting business via an e-mail system. That might be impractical, but perhaps governors could automatically become senators 4 years after election to office, and for a 4-year term. That would automatically produce presidential timber with foreign policy experience in the Senate, coupled with executive experience in the governorship.

[AndrewC]

Your puppy is doomed to die in its crib. Americans want more power to tame its legislators not less, ...would strike them as hilarious. and ludicrous.

The writers of the U.S. Constitution might disagree with you. In any case, presently I have no power over the Hildabeast so nothing will change in that arena. However, like the framers of the Constitution, I believe there is gold in the State's control of a National body.

State legislatures: Still the real victory

Two years ago, almost to the day, I wrote an article entitled "State Legislatures: The Real Victory" which pointed out that the presidential election, which was still being studied by the druids of the judiciary, was less significant that the very real victory which Republicans had made in gaining seats and chambers in state legislative chambers.

The proof in the pudding is November 5, 2002. Although President Bush's stumping for Republicans was critically important, there is every reason to believe that November 2002 would not have been a clean Republican sweep without the careful, serious commitment made eight years earlier to fight for every state legislative seat.

Consider how the election results would have been spun if Republicans had not gained five seats in the House of Representatives, but lost five seats? The talking heads would be talking about the "razor thin Republican majority" and intense pressure would have been put on a few moderate Republicans to switch seats, just as former New York Congressman Forbes had done in 2000.

What was the difference between those two results? Almost certainly most of it was the result of Republican use or prevention of Democrat gerrymandering. Republican strategists themselves were saying more than a year before November 2002 would be worth eight or nine House seats, even if the popular vote remained exactly the same. This prediction turned out to be very astute.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

The problem is not a government structural or procedural one. The people who could vote to change things in this country won't do it. I speak from personal experience. Many people are aware of political corruption and the problems of our country. They are so cynical and/or lazy, they will not go to the polls to do anything about. I've seen it first-hand. I've experienced it.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but the 17th Amendment is not what's wrong with America. Attitude is what's wrong with America. The people have it in their power to change things but many will not lift a finger to do anything about it. There are enough non-voting citizens in this country to clean out every elected representative and senator within the next two years if the non-voters decided to vote for new blood.

In these latter days of America, we have lost our sense of citizenship. We have lost the value of freedom and many no longer treasure their voting privilege and responsibility. I wish changing a Constitutional amendment would solve the problem. It will not.

Sadly, most Americans will not appreciate our country and our constitutional form of government until both are long gone. We will lose them because our history is being lost. Our culture is being lost. Our sense of participation in government is being lost.

It is the way of the human beings. We never appreciate what we have until we have lost it.

[Capt. Tom]

By having the senate appointed by others, we rid ourselves of corruption. Wow! A pure Utopia just like the UN which is full of appointed officials. Is somebody smoking crack here or sump'em?

If senators were appointed by the state legislature our two senators from Mass. for life would be Kevin White and Billy Bulger.

So we don't have much of a chance, except under the present amended Constitution where a Republican might win someday. - Tom

[BillyBoy]

>> Your puppy is doomed to die in its crib. Americans want more power to tame its legislators not less, and the thought of electing Senators via the mediocrities/kooks the inhabit state legislatures, would strike them as hilarious. and ludicrous. Find something more useful to do with your time. I mean it. <<

>> By having the senate appointed by others, we rid ourselves of corruption. Wow! A pure Utopia just like the UN which is full of appointed officials. Is somebody smoking crack here or sump'em? <<

Wow, some sane responces here. There seem to be two kinds of conservative thought on FR. Those of us who DON'T trust corrupt politicians and want to REDUCE the power of government ACROSS the power-- federal, state, and local. And those who "conservatives" who just hate the federal government, the "states rights" crowd actually TRUSTS the buerucrats on the state level to have MORE power and in effect create an E.U. style government that has 50 little dictatorships fighting amongst each other. Obviously, the latter group is pushing for this kind of stuff.

I can tell you right now that the politicians in Illinois have already VASTLY exceeded their authority and the last thing I would want is to let these liberal scumbags have MORE power to control my life. The Chicago machine is DROOLING over the idea of being able to control now only all statewide politics (through their gerrymandered 2000 census map of the legislature) but take control of our federal politicians too and REMOVE all the federal politicans currently elected by Illinoisans to thwart their efforts.

It's bad enough when the feds upsurge the power guranteed to the states, and it's just as bad when egomatic state leaders upsurge powers that the consitution delegates to the feds (if you don't think so, take a lot at when Illinois' RINO governor appointed HIMSELF ambassador to Cuba and used taxpayer funds to afford this little goodwill trip so could lobby to abolish the Cuban embargo...hmmm...last time I checked, GOVERNORS cannot decide national foriegn trade policy, although try telling that to the idiots running this state).

Obviously the pro-big goverment crowd is naive enough to believe state legislatures will act in the best interests of the citizens of their state, thereby acting as a system of checks and balences. In fact, the opposite is true. The 2002 election results prove that a bunch of liberal-minded states are now controlled by conservative-interests (Rhode Island, Vermont, etc.) and a bunch of solidly conservative states are controlled by liberal interests (many southern states, Arizona, etc.) This elections tend to be temporary flukes and do not represent the long term interests of their states. Thus, appointed Senators with a six year term would just magnify what was INTENDED as a 2-year government mandate. The very reason the Democrats overturned the will of the majority and took control of the Senate from 2001-2002 is because several popularly elected Senators died, leaving the state governors to name replacements. Democrat governors NATURALLY named the most partisan-Democrat loyalist replacements, regardless of the kind of Senator that best reflected the state interests (see Carnahan in Missouri as the obvious exapmple) When the Senate was controlled by this form of government in the 1880s, it was filled with nothing but party hacks that were choosen on the basis of how much $$$ they've gotten for the corrupt leaders in their state parties over the years.

A horrible system if their ever was one. Stephen Douglas did not represent the interests of most Illinoisans, but rather ther interests of a Democrat machine that controlled the legislature through gerrymandered legislature at the time.

If they think this is such a good idea, I wonder if they want to have State Senators appointed by "regional County/Township supervisors", and township supervisiors appointed by "local city councils", in turn. After all, it's only a logical extention of what they are advocating. Most local politicans run unopposed for decades because of their vast patronage, but I guess really naive people think it's represents the will of people when 40% of your legislators don't even have opponents to challenge them.

[RichInOC]

Sorry, I've seen my state legislature in action, and they do quite enough damage as is without having the right to pick my senators for me, thank you very much.

[Torie]

Illinois. I rememeber it fondly, and think Chicago is the most wonderful city in America, bar none, despite, rather due to, matters of state. The thought that local governance run amock with yet more power in Illinois is rather arresting isn't it?

[Paleo Conservative]

As a slightly less impractical matter, it would be well if an amendment could be passed to make the senators were made running mates of the governors.

Pretty impractical. Governors tend to have 4-year terms although a few have 2-year terms. US Senators have 6-year terms which are staggered so that only 1/3rd of the Senate is up for election in a particular election cycle. Some states don't even elect their legisltures at the same time as they elect congressmen and senators. New Jersey and Virginia elect their governors the year after presidential elections, while Mississippi and Kentucky elect their governors the year before presidential elections.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

All one hundred of them now are criminals and traitors, with the possible exception of Jean Carnahan, only because she is new. Linc Chafee is new, but he inherited his treason along with his Senate seat, from his old man.

You don't need an "amendment" to fix the senate.

You need something completely different.

[pierrem15]

Repealing the 17th might force people to take a closer look at the kooks, liars and thieves inhabiting the state legislatures.

[Ed_in_NJ]

bttt

[nicollo]

By having the senate appointed by others, we rid ourselves of corruption. Wow! A pure Utopia just like the UN which is full of appointed officials. Is somebody smoking crack here or sump'em?

The 17th Amendment was enacted precisely for the reasons you state it ought not be repealed. Ironic? No, sad.

The progressives who enacted it thought that if the "people" could only choose their Senators corruption would *bing *bang disappear. Duh.

Just as with their other innovation, the direct primary, all they succeded in doing was to create a situation whereby power was transfered from political machines which were empowered by majority votes to politicians who were elected by majorities of minorities.

The 17th Amendment has removed the voters' relationship to their local representatives -- the exact opposite of its intent. Get rid of it!

[IronJack]

Your puppy is doomed to die in its crib.

I hope you mix drinks better than you mix metaphors.

[Ed_in_NJ]

I am reminded that at the time i42 was impeached, there were 39 Republican Governors.

Since, without the 17th in place, Senators would not have had to worry about the 'popularity' of the POTUS (and getting themselves re-elected), it is reasonable to conclude that at least 2/3 of them would have voted to toss him out.

That, in and of itself, would make me want to return to the original Constitution, but for the fact that I already wanted it.

[Torie]

Your hope is to no avail. I suck in that endeavor too.

[cornelis]

I suck in that endeavor too.

Perhaps some Plato for you? You don't have to drink to read the Symposium.

[Publius]

The core problem that the Progressives wished to address a century ago was the effect that industrialization and the money generated by industrialization was having on politics at the state level -- and a desire to prevent those problems from moving up to the federal level.

At the time of the Founding, wealth came from the land and what could be grown on it. Of the Framers, only Hamilton had a inkling of what kind of wealth could be generated from manufactures. After the Civil War when the Industrial Revolution hit America in full earnest, wealth began to concentrate in the hands of mill and factory owners, and with that wealth came political power in the rawest of forms.

There was no secret ballot then. When you went to cast your vote, you told the county clerk whom you were voting for. In some jurisdictions, factory owners would parade their workers to the polling place in military rank and file -- and next to the county clerk sat the company representative who made sure you voted the "right" way. If you didn't, you would be fired, evicted from your company housing, and your scrip would no longer be good at the company store. In some of the more corrupt districts it was impossible to tell where the company goon squad ended and local law enforcement began, and your life would be in grave danger.

This corruption translated from counties to the state legislatures. The California legislature was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Southern Pacific Railway, and in Montana it was Anaconda Copper. In Pennsylvania, the coal interests owned the legislature, and in the post-Civil War South it was the cotton and textile interests. Because state legislatures chose US senators, this corruption translated to the Senate. The Senator from California, for example, was known as the senator from the Southern Pacific.

The Progressives were an outgrowth of eastern and mid-western Republicanism who favored changing the laws to blunt the effects of robber baron capitalism before more radical people, like the Populists, could nationalize everything in sight. They thought of this kind of change as preventive medicine. The Progressives made the secret ballot, primary elections, popular election of senators, and iniative/referendum/recall their major platforms for change.

The Progressives also had another agenda. The Civil War was not that far in the past, and the Progressives wanted to de-emphasize the states in favor of the greater national sovereignty propounded by Hamilton, Clay, Webster and Lincoln. Realizing the role that the Constitution's strictures on federal tax collection had played in the events leading to the Civil War, the Progressives wanted to permit direct federal taxation, and the 16th Amendment was their vehicle to remove the states from federal tax policy.

Even the Pledge of Allegiance was a part of the Progressive's plan to emphasize national sovereignty by replacing the Constitution as America's unifying icon with the Flag. The goal was to get people to turn to their government for solutions, not to themselves or their voluntary associations.

The Senate, of course, vehemently opposed direct election. So the state legislatures began issuing a call for a Convention for Proposing Amendments under Article V of the US Constitution. As the applications from the states amassed, Congress panicked. Holding an Article V Convention with all this agitation for change in the air frightened both sides in Congress. The idea of letting the states of the Old Confederacy propose amendments to the Constitution only 48 years after Appomattox terrified the Progressives and much of the national establishment. Nobody wanted a surprise.

When there was only one state to go to trigger a convention call, the Senate passed the 17th Amendment with the necessary two-thirds majority, and the states ratified in recond time. Thus did the Framer's concept of one House for the People and one House for the States fall.

[mountainfolk]

Amen!!

[nicollo]

The problem with your history of the 17th amendment is that it was not enacted until after its proponents took office -- those that opposed it were voted out of office in the 1910 to 1912 statewide and national elections.

The Old Guard would never have gone with it, regardless of outside pressures. No, the 17th Amendment came of Democrats, who took the House in 1910, and progressive Senators, who combined with the Democrats in the Senate in 1912.

The sad fact is that the 17th Amendment didn't change those practices you cite as having led to its enactment. California went "progressive" (anti-Harriman) in 1910, two years before the congressional passage of the amendment, and Mountain State congressmen didn't change during that period. Look up the congressional rolls.

The corruption you cite was only a factor in publicity for direct democracy, not a factor in the enactment of the 17th Amendment.

[nicollo]

... besides, Hiram Johnson, the anti-Southern Pacific governor of California merely replaced the Harriman regime with his own despotism. Just ask Charles Evens Hughes, who lost the 1916 presidency to Johnson's machinations.

[anchorclankor]

Any person running for the office of representative or senator to the federal congress shall not be permitted to receive monies from from any person or organization outside the boundaries of the respective office for which they are running.

[Jhoffa_]

..and the thought of electing Senators via the mediocrities/kooks the inhabit state legislatures, would strike them as hilarious. and ludicrous.

I think it would be great.. Much more attention would be paid to State level politics then. There would be more accountability & consistency also I bet.

I mean, at the State level, you wouldn't intentionally support someone who would go to Washington and make you look bad..

[nicollo]

Encactment of the 17th Amendment did little to change the composition of the Senate. I can't think of a single Senator who lost a seat due to its enactment. I can name many who kept their seats despite it, and despite their "machines."

Boies Penrose of Pennsylvania is case in point.

[Wilhelm Tell]

Your puppy is doomed to die in its crib.

I hope you mix drinks better than you mix metaphors.

LOL! It is an interesting idea, but I look at State legislatures like those from California and Illinois and I have my doubts that this measure would do anything except replace some half-idiots in the Senate with complete idiots. If we had a truly federal system that respected the constitution, this might work. As things are, I think an election is somewhat better than a politician like Gray Davis just appointing a senator. With an elected Senate, once in a while someone decent or at least not totally corrupt might win. Having these people appointed by the same machine that is making the home state an unlivable place hardly sounds like an improvement.

[Celtman]

at the time i42 was impeached, there were 39 Republican Governors.

      But without the 17th, senators would be chosen by state legislatures, not by governors.  Don't know about the breakdown by state, but our state had a Republican governor (and two Republican Senators) at the time - and I don't think Republicans have ever, in the history of the state, controlled the legislature.

      That said, repealing the 17th would be a step toward restoring the US as a functioning federal republic.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

Any person running for the office of representative or senator to the federal congress shall not be permitted to receive monies from from any person or organization outside the boundaries of the respective office for which they are running.

I live in Texas. I am generally okay with my senators, but.... The actions of Ted Kennedy affect my life negatively. The actions of Chuck Schumer affect my life negatively. The actions of Hillary! affect my life negatively. The actions of Tom Daschle affect my life negatively. And so on... Why shouldn't I be allowed to contribute to their opponents?

As for the organization side of your proposition, you would quickly see organizations getting around that rule by plopping a one-person office in every state (or whatever minimum effort is necessary to be considered an in-state organization).

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

US Senators have 6-year terms

Yeah. Well, I did say it'd take a Constitutional Amendment . . .

[Paleo Conservative]

'US Senators have 6-year terms'

Yeah. Well, I did say it'd take a Constitutional Amendment . . .

Well I would be opposed to that change. By having only 1/3rd of the Senate up for election each cycle, our political system is partially insulated from short term extreme changes in government. In order to make lasting changes it is necessary to win several elections in succession. I much prefer our system of government than parlimentary systems where there is tyrrany of the majority and little protection of minority rights.

[Consort]

It would probably be a lot easier and faster to find a way to take the money and corruption out of the current method than it would be to repeal the amendment, IMO.

[Political Junkie Too]

What about the impact on national party-building? If state legislatures appointed senators, would we see a dominant national machine headed by the likes of Tom Daschle and Terry McAuliffe? Or would senators be more beholden to the state legislatures that appointed them rather than national money machines that cherry-pick seats to fund? Would a carpetbagger like Hillary! get elected in a New York that appoints its senators or would an internal candidate groomed by local politics have been a more likely senator?

The Founding Fathers intended the House to be receptive to the whims of the people and the Senate to be the more insulated body, but with today's gerrymandering it is the House that is locked in and the Senate that is zig-zagging to the public whim.

People are too busy today with multiple jobs, and kids with more hobbies than a parent can keep up with, to focus on all the voting that is necessary. It was intended for people to vote for their state politicians, whom they were expected to know about, and their federal Representatives. Their state politicians were to appoint the Senators. If you don't like the senators, then change the state politicians who appointed them.

Regarding corruption, it is probably better to have that corruption closer to home rather in Washington, DC. The roads still have to be maintained, the schools repaired, services provided, and if the basic needs don't get addressed the people will vote out the state politicians. That will have a ripple effect on who gets appointed as senator.

-PJ

[Consort]

• Before the 17th Amendment, a state could be underrepresented if the state legislature couldn't agree on who should be Senator. Wouldn't that problem come up again?

• Right now, if we don't like a Senator, we can vote him out at election time. With the change, the state legislature can reappoint a Senator we don't like him or they can remove a Senator we do like.

• Maybe a state level electoral college by county could be used so that small counties could have a little more sayso against the more densely populated counties (like on the red and blue electoral map).

[Political Junkie Too]

I suppose one can find in the "penumbra" of the constitution wording that supports that state legislatures can choose senators like they choose electors.

Article I Section 3 Clause 1 said, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years..." Article II Section 1 Clause 2 says, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..." Would it have been possible for a legislature to choose between their own appointment of senators vs. statewide elections for senators, if they have the power to direct the manner of selecting senators?

That would leave it up to each state to determine how senators are selected.

-PJ

[WhiteGuy]

I am in favor of anything that de-centralizes power.

Sounds like a step in the right direction.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

By having only 1/3rd of the Senate up for election each cycle, our political system is partially insulated from short term extreme changes in government. In order to make lasting changes it is necessary to win several elections in succession. I much prefer our system of government than parlimentary systems where there is tyrrany of the majority

Certainly you have an important point.

My scheme assumes the finessing of the issue that some states have 2-year governorship incumbency, and that the preponderance of governorships are elected in odd years, mostly synchronous with each other. One version would have the governors become senators for 4 years after their governorships; that isn't a recipe for wild swings in Senate policy since senators' terms wouldn't end 'til 8 years after initial election.

But the crucial benefits are that the governors have influence in Washington in that they will be senators themselves in the forseeable future--and that sitting senators all (I'd be interested in reducing the size of the Senate from 2 per state to one, still having twice as many members as the original 13 states had . . .) know what it's like to deal with the federal mandates. Federal judicial activism became a serious problem after the 17th Amendment, because the Senate was no longer the representative of the state governments; surely my proposal would reverse the judical tendency to erode state's rights.

I also am interested in the idea that the former governors all acquire foreign policy exposure, leading to the rapid generation of presidential timber. It would raise the question of why anyone but a successful former governor would ever be considered for the presidency . . .

[knarf]

bumpworthy for further contemplation

[Xthe17th]

• Before the 17th Amendment, a state could be underrepresented if the state legislature couldn't agree on who should be Senator. Wouldn't that problem come up again? Please refer to Section 5 of Proposed Resolution for Repeal (by John MacMullen). The governor would have the final say, and anyway, SO WHAT!? It's the state's problem. This is the whole crux of the idea. Senators are to directly represent the interests of their State, not their people. Representing the people is the role of the US House. If the state legislature can't get their state properly represented in the US Senate, then THEY lose influence. If it is detrimental to the state, than the people are free to vote out their state legislators at the next election. The difference between now and the pre-1913 deadlocks is communication. People weren't really aware of their state's lack of representation in pre-radio/TV/cable/satellite/internet days. It would be MUCH MORE ATTENTION GETTING now.

----------------
• Right now, if we don't like a Senator, we can vote him out at election time. With the change, the state legislature can reappoint a Senator we don't like him or they can remove a Senator we do like. Again, please refer to section 4 of the above repeal proposal. Removal to require majorities in both state houses (unicameral NE and ME excepted). Yes, the state legislature would be in total control of THEIR (not your) US Senators. This is an essential concept to grasp! However, "We the People" would now be able to influence our preference for US Senators every 2 years instead of 6 by voting for state legislators who have goals similar to those we would desire of US Senators. So, for all intents and purposes, even though senators are appointed to 6-year terms, states would never have an "off senate election" year.

---------------
• Maybe a state level electoral college by county could be used... see earlier posts: Idea for Defacto Repeal, thread 1, and thread 2. Actually, the preferable, IMHO, county idea violates the damn "one man one vote" supreme court rule. However, in my state of West Virginia for example, we have 58 state house "delegate" districts (shared by 100 delegates) and 17 state senate districts (shared by 34 senators). The senate districts do overlap the delegate districts, but regardless, each district HAS to have populations within 5% of one another; voting precincts being the smallest unit of division. So, that's a total of 75 districts, an odd number, which would allow our voting system to easily be converted from a direct election to district ticket for US Senate - resembling state level electoral college, and PERFECTLY LEGAL under the current 17th amendment!

[Consort]

SO WHAT!? It's the state's problem.

That's where you lost my support.

In states like California where the entire legislature is controlled by the Democrats.....what is the possibility of ever appointing a Republican Senator under your scenario?

[Xthe17th]

"In states like California where the entire legislature is controlled by the Democrats.....what is the possibility of ever appointing a Republican Senator under your scenario?"

The same probability as my state of West Virginia has. Do you think West Virginians WILL EVER vote out Robert "king-of-pork" Byrdropping or moneybags Rockefeller? Most likely and unfortunately no! Plus, Dems have entirely controlled this state for over 70 years. State house is only 30% R, while state senate is just 25%R!

But, the people are slowly speaking and little by little electing Republicans to our legislature. The People are also building the WVGOP and every once in a while putting a Republican in the governor's mansion. The people are getting sick of their state always being last and jobs, people, and companies leaving the Mountain State.

IMHO, California has nothing to lose with "this plan" (repeal of the 17th). When's the last time you had a Republican Senator? Local politics is much more dynamic and personally involved than statewide. And besides, the issue isn't party politics. It's not about Republicans or Democrats getting a leg up. It's about your state being actually represented in federal congress. This is the far-sighted concept everyone must grasp.

[Political Junkie Too]

By having only 1/3rd of the Senate up for election each cycle, our political system is partially insulated from short term extreme changes in government.

Also, by having the Senators appointed instead of elected, they are allowed to deliberate without concern for the impacts their decisions have on their chances for re-election. That is another insulating factor.

-PJ

[Consort]

It's about your state being actually represented in federal congress. This is the far-sighted concept everyone must grasp.

It's could be very short-sighted. When the appointed or elected Senator takes his/her seat, what would an appointed Senator do that an elected Senator can not do, as well?

[Consort]

Also, by having the Senators appointed instead of elected, they are allowed to deliberate without concern for the impacts their decisions have on their chances for re-election.

The concern for the impacts their decisions have on their chances for re-election will change to the concern for the impacts their decisions have on their chances for re-appointment. They will be subjected to the threats of partisan legislators for every decision they are about to make.