Illinois senate race, Version 2.0

Oak Lawn (IL) Reporter ^ | 8/12/04 | Michael M. Bates

[TigersEye]

If you have a problem with the way your Senator is acting what are you going to do? Before the 17th A. the people of a state could put pressure on their elected legilators and he could be fired. Replaced. On the spot.

Now you can hope that your other Senator and the Senators of all the other states will give a rat's heiny what you think and censure one of their own. Snowball's chance.

Or you wait until he's up for election and fight the national machine that he has endeared himself to, indebted himself to, done favors for and hope your up-and-coming grassroots homeboy can unseat him.

[BikerNYC]

The solution to that is put recall procedures into place, similar to those that took out Gray Davis, not to disenfranchise the elctorate and revert to a corrupt system of backroom deals in which the most powerful state officials got to send their personal fair-haired boys to Washington.

I guess it's a matter of trust. Who do you trust more to be the decision-maker of who gets to represent the interests of a state's residents in Washington: the state's electorate or the state's elected officials?

[TigersEye]

More stable and better informed? Give me a break.

What motivated the average voter? What does the average voter know about the state's finances, resources, industry etc, etc.? The people of a state can keep track of local issues better, in terms of what their elected officials are doing, and have a greater effect on their willingness to comply with their wishes. So you hire people with experience that applies to your state.

You seem to be arguing that self-government is just tooo harrrrd and it's better to let the feds run it. That's what the 17th Amendment lends itself to. Do the people of a state have more say-so over their state by directly electing two U.S. Senators or by electing state officials (whose jobs are beholden to voters in specific districts of that state) who then appoint two Senators who must answer to them or be yanked?

It's the same as the Electoral College debate. Does that disenfranchise the people? It keeps the liberal eastern cities from ruling over the rural western states with redistributionist policies.

[TigersEye]

I guess it depends on who you trust to pull the levers. 90% of the people who vote vote for the best looking candidate. Or more likely the one who says he will give them something.

It was a Republic. And we lost it.

[BikerNYC]

You seem to be arguing that self-government is just tooo harrrrd and it's better to let the feds run it.

On the contrary, your way is too easy. I want the local folks to run it, and when I say folks, I mean folks. State elected officials often cannot agree to enact a state budget as required by law. I do not expect them to be able to choose a Senator to represent me better than I can choose a Senator to represent me.

Self-government is just that. It begins with me. When we elect a representative ourselves, we get what we deserve. When we let others elect one for us, we usually get worse.

The people of a state have more say-so over who goes to Washington when they decide who goes, not when others decide for them.

[TigersEye]

I'm glad to hear that your Senators represent you so well.

[BikerNYC]

The NY electorate got what it deserves. It wasn't my choice, but I respect my fellow voters and don't dis their right to vote for the senate candidate of their choice just because my canditate didn't win this time.

[TigersEye]

I thought we were talking about electing a Senator who would best represent the interests of the state not your personal feelings about voters or getting your own personal interests represented?

[TigersEye]

The NY electorate got what it deserves.

It was just this sort of selfish attitude (sorry, I can't put it any other way) that the people who promoted the 17th Amendment were counting on. Hill and Chuck were elected by a majority vote of NY state. Most people in NY live in NYC. People in NYC have decidedly different interests than most of the rest of NYrs. They also don't know or don't understand very well the issues of upstate NYrs. But they have the majority so they elect the Sen.'s. Mob rule.

If anyone in NY is represented by them it's NYC and surrounding burbs. Wouldn't it be fairer (and better for the whole state) if they were selected by representatives from all around the state? Like state legislators who come from districts all around the state? That way they would serve the interests of ALL the people, at least a little moreso. Wouldn't that give the conservative folks in rural NY a little more say in things? Or do they deserve what they get?

[Mike Bates]

When we elect a representative ourselves, we get what we deserve. When we let others elect one for us, we usually get worse.

Is that what happened with the Electoral College in 2000?

[BikerNYC]

What are the interests of a State other than the cummulative interests of those who reside within the State?

[BikerNYC]

What you are arguing for is smaller states, so that minorities in parts of existing states can send their own senators to DC. That's fine with me. Go draw the new map.

[familyofman]

"Wouldn't it be fairer (and better for the whole state) if they were selected by representatives from all around the state? Like state legislators who come from districts all around the state? That way they would serve the interests of ALL the people, at least a little moreso. Wouldn't that give the conservative folks in rural NY a little more say in things? Or do they deserve what they get?"

Fairer for who? Looks like someone is trying to 'rig the system' to get a desired result. Why should a citizen have less of a vote based on where they live? Why not base it on; income, eye color, height (tall people get 1/2 vote)...?

[discostu]

The idea was the Senators served only at the sufferance of the state legislature, they didn't even have terms, one bad vote could get you yanked. What kind of Senators you would appoint was a campaign issue for people running for the legislature, and it made the Senate representation an extension of the state government. Now with the 6 year terms and most states not even having recall possibilities a Senator can do what they want for 6 years and the people they're representing are SOL. It takes away power from the electorate and weakens the concept of what the Senate is supposed to be.

[Chemist_Geek]

I understand the point, but what state interests does a Senator have to represent other than the interests of the state's electorate?

I'll give you an example: the two U.S. Senators supposedly from Michigan, really are from Detroit and its immediate suburbs. The rest of the State is not represented - Michigan as a whole, is not merely Detroit.

By mandating popular election of Senators, the power of the urban areas made a dramatic jump. By returning to a state legislature election, the outstate interests might just get a hearing.

[BikerNYC]

You are right to the extent that the interests of those on the losing side of an election are not represented by the winning candidate. But, hey, what can ya do? Someone's gotta lose. How does the legislature's decision to pick someone outside of Detroit help represent the interests of those in Detroit? Either way, sonone's gonna lose.

[sphinx]

To think that in a matter of days we went from draft Ditka to draft Keyes ....

[Chemist_Geek]

You are right to the extent that the interests of those on the losing side of an election are not represented by the winning candidate. But, hey, what can ya do? Someone's gotta lose.

True, but, by allowing a candidate to coast to victory on the votes from one area, that causes the rest of the State's interests to be ignored. Why should they pay any attention to outstate? The outstaters' votes couldn't unseat the Senator, even if they were all for the opponent.

[BikerNYC]

I understand your point. I hear the same thing in NYC, that those who live on the westside don't have the interests of those who live on the eastside at heart, and all of them don't care at all about those who live downtown.

Your argument suggests that we should have smaller states. The boundaries we have now need not remain the same forever. I'm fine with 100 states rather than 50.

[Mike Bates]

To think that in a matter of days we went from draft Ditka to draft Keyes ....

I think Disraeli said that desperation is sometimes as powerful an inspirer as genius. And, boy, the state GOP was desperate.