Posted on 06/13/2014 7:26:52 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
It was a bit lost in the hubbub over rules and credentials fights, but the platform committee at the Idaho Republican Party convention in Moscow today voted to remove one of the most controversial planks in the party’s platform: The one calling for repeal of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would have the effect of doing away with direct election of U.S. senators and instead letting state legislatures choose senators. “I was the one who made the motion,” said Rep. Brandon Hixon, R-Caldwell, a delegate from Canyon County. “It passed the committee. Now it will go to the general assembly for a full vote.” That’ll happen on Saturday.
Dan Cravens of Bingham County proposed the change, saying under the current platform, the Idaho GOP is advocating removing Idaho voters’ ability to re-elect GOP Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch. “The adoption of the language advocating the repeal of the 17th Amendment has placed a burden on Republican candidates throughout Idaho,” Cravens wrote in his proposal. “Candidates that agree to accept the tenets of the Idaho Republican Platform are forced to accept and defend the notion that the voters of Idaho, or any other state, should not have the right to elect their U.S. Senators.”
Hixon said, “Idahoans want their voices to be heard. … I can’t imagine taking the voting power away from all 1.6 million people in Idaho and giving it to just 105 people in the Idaho Legislature to elect our United States senators.”
PING!
Honestly, this is an issue I do not understand. I promise you, if the legislature of SC was in charge of senators, we wouldn’t have Tim Scott, but we would still have Lindsey Graham and we would never have had Jim DeMint. Repealing the 17th is not a panacea...
When explained, the reason for Senators being eleted by State Legislature make perfect.. Wonder if people would be for it, if explained the political rancor would die down if 17th Amendment would be repealed and “things’ would get done.
We could start by going one and one. One from the legislature and one popularily elected.
It’s intended to be structural. Having state governments represented is way to make states have an interest in restraining the feds.
It wouldn’t eliminate corruption. It would change its emphasis to the states and indirectly encourage people to vote with their feet, to move to less corrupt states or have face-to-face confrontations at state capitals.
We don’t need any stinking house of lords elected by their socialist cronies in state legislatures. We don’t need even more pork. Even the general electorate isn’t as much in favor of more regulations and taxes as the conniving legislators.
I would like to get rid of the 17th but asking people to give up their “right” to vote for senators is a high hurdle.
You might be able to change the way they’re elected so its not a popular vote. Maybe an electoral type of system where a certain number of votes are allotted to individual districts.
We definitely need recall power over senators.
Another good idea.
Yes it is a shame .. and the reason is that when the States selected their senators - then the senators were usually selected because they adhered to the principles and policies of the governor of the state who appointed them.
The way it is now, the senators are all over the place .. and some of them are there specifically to be a thorn in the side of their Governor.
Awww it placed a burden on Republican candidates. Can’t any of these people do anything that is not partisan, but for the good of the U.S.?
“Idahoans want their voices to be heard.”
That is what the House of Representatives is for, moron.
Senators have become like the perfumed princes of the realm.
The people of the United States are already represented by the House of Representatives. Why would there be a second representation of the people?
The Senate is to represent the states.
Seems that Canyon County, Idaho needs to find itself a representative who understands the separation of powers.
I am shocked that senators from either party would be opposed to such a measure and would bring pressure to bear against any such measure from whatever source.
Shocked I tell you, shocked!
Those damn uppity people thinking they know better.
When’s my Tee Time with the chief?
I think so. All hat and no cattle.
Also there always complaining about how much political campaign’s cost and that big money gives unfair advantage.
The old system would do away with both concerns.
It’s Rome all over again. The founders knew better, but the ruling class in the early 20th didn’t like that. They wanted Rome. And lo and behold, we have it!
What’s old is new again. I doubt I’ll live long enough to see where the founder’s vision will become new again. If ever.
But I sure as Hell hope it will.
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.