Replies

Thank you for the analysis.

Politicians are scum, this is known, I really don’t get the bizarre augments “um they will act in the STATE’s interest because um...it’s 1822 where I live and uh WOODROW WILSON”.

You know what we should do, projected the entire Senate, what it would be today without direct elections, each Senate race (like pretend they abolished it starting with the 2014 elections).

It’s rather difficult to conclude exactly who might’ve won those races. My conclusions, however, would take into account that if a Conservative were nominated, enough RINOs would split off to either elect a Demonrat or a dissident RINO. The prime example would be the infamous TX DewCRIST-Cruz 2012 battle. You know the Dems and RINOs would’ve delivered the race to DewCRIST.

There wouldn’t be a single, solitary fiscal Conservative member of the Senate. Just scores of spendthrifts looking to loot the treasury for their state and a competition as to see who could steal more.

This ludicrous claim there’d be more statesmen in the body is a thoroughly debunked one. For one, WHO are these statesmen, and HOW would they get elected ? Preaching any sort of fiscal austerity would be electoral suicide in ANY state. Spend less = less money for that state, which would simply go to another whose Senators don’t care about limiting spending.

When my dad was alive, he had a rather clever proposal on how to get Senators to represent "state interests" without all this "abolish the 17th amendment" nonscene or changing it so the Senator is elected along with the Governor or any other convulted "reform" like that that would require a supermajority and/or altering the U.S. Constitution further, or anything that would take away people's ability to decide who represents them in government.

He noted the constitution is silent on how Senators get PAID, so instead of the FEDERAL government guaranteeing them all the SAME cushy lifetime salary, pension, and benefits, simply pass a law devolving salary matters to the state level. If the state of California wants to pay THEIR Senators $2 million per year, they could do so out of their own state government's funds, and if the state of Idaho wants to pay their Senator a $1.00 salary a year, they could likewise make that decision. All U.S. Senators would still have the exact same powers and responsibilities and be elected by We The People, but how they get compensated for their "duties" would be entirely up to state governments.

Sounds like an excellent idea to me, and would likely result in numerous Senator's salaries being slashed once each of the 50 state governments had to pay out of pocket for the "services" of their U.S. Senators.