[US Navy Vet]

I’m likin” this guy!

[cripplecreek]

But state legislators aren’t as compromised and would choose senators who truly put their state’s needs first.

I wouldn't count on that. It was A republican senator in Michigan who introduced the bill that forced home care workers into a union they didn't want. There were several republican co sponsors. They did it in return for SEIU and teacher's union support.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

PING!

[vpintheak]

I like Joe, and I know he makes liberals froth at the mouth. Don’t worry about the comments on the News-Minor site. Those are from regular posters who are mentally insane and most likely unemployed as a lifestyle choice.

[r9etb]

Stupid move. Joe can like the idea all he wants, but now he's given his opponent a handle, on a topic where he didn't need to. "Joe Miller wants to take away your right to vote for your own senators. He'd rather give that right to the special interests in Juneau....."

That's the sort of topic better left for after he's been elected.

[keep your powder dry]

I recon’ if the states still had a voice in DC we could have avoided much of this mess...

[Above My Pay Grade]

Personally, I think this is a terrible idea. I think this would result in the Senate being filled with establishment RINOs (and Democrats, of course).

With rare exceptions, nobody more “conservative” than John McCain or Lindsay Graham would ever be elected to the Senate.

At least with the current system, the voters have the option of neutralizing all the special interest money by simply ignoring all the media propaganda purchased with it.

Also, if you think you have earmark problems now, wait until each Senator is beholden to dozens of corrupt state legislators, all demanding pork for their districts and their friends and relatives.

In theory, the Senators would represent their states. In the real world they would represent the special interests and the party bosses even more than they do now.

Miller is a perfect example. If the Alaska legislature picked the Senators a Murkowski would probably hold BOTH seats.

The only upside I see is that it might cause voters to pay closer attention to who they elect to their state legislators.

[RJL]

Excellent!

As it is now the states have virtually no power, they simply dance to the music played by the feds.

[raybbr]

But state legislators aren’t as compromised and would choose senators who truly put their state’s needs first.”

What the heck is he smoking?

[Westbrook]

I completely agree!

The 17th amendment was part of the socialist movement to transition us from a Republic to a Demoncracy.

The talk about eliminating the electoral college is towards the same end.

[PA Engineer]

I am liken this guy more and more.

[xzins]

The direct election of Senators has led to an elite class in American politics.

A combination of state legislative appointment and term limits WOULD keep the Senate answerable to the state legislature.

And state legislative districts are so small that those legistlators are regularly seen by their constituents. It doesn’t take a fortune to overthrow one, given the relatively limited size of a state legislative district.

[The4thHorseman]

As a conservative living in California, all I can say is “No, no, no!”

Direct election of our senators is the only way a Republican (let alone a conservative) could ever be elected from this state.

If our idiotic, uber-liberal State Legislature had that authority, all our Senators would be as insanely left as Babs Boxer (and there would never be a single one with an R behind their name).

[Sola Veritas]

“The idea, apparently, is that if senators are selected by legislators, they would be less susceptible to special interests and more supportive of states’ rights.”

Nice in concept, but it won’t do what they want. I lived in a state that for years had a legislature controlled by liberal democrats while the people still sent conservative republican senators to Washington. If the legislature had of picked Senators, they would all be liberal democrats.

People often vote differently on “local” reps than they do “national” ones.

What is a better idea is to put term limits on Senators and Representatives to stop intrenched incubents.

[Republic]

I would approact it a different way. I would never support the idea of a small group electing a senator. I like having a say. A vote as it were.

Instead, I would propose term term limits for senators. Two at most. And pension paid according to time served.

I would also propose that no senatorial campaign can accept money from foundations, companies and businesses not founded in and located in the senators state and no money allowed from people not living in the State. Period.

Any senator who moves into a job after leaving the senate that is attached to a company that contributed to his campaign would have to forgo the federal senate pension.

Nothing can be accepted from lobbyists, including lunches, dinners, vacations, services of any kind. The only time a senator would be permitted to entertain lobbyist would be IN HIS OFFICE and it would only be for a stated period of time for this kind of push each week. This would open a LOAD of time for the senators to actually take actual calls from folks in their states, would allow them actual time to read the damn bills, and would allow for a lot less corruption.

[Onelifetogive]

Matt Bai of the New York Times wrote in June that, “Putting Senate seats in the hands of lawmakers would not empower states so much as it would resurrect the old-fashioned American political machine – a condition voters in the Internet age would tolerate for about 10 minutes.”

I can accept that. So, let's figure out a way to correct the problem.

The idea behind the appointed Senators was to defent the interests of their state. How about the Senate set become a political appointment of each state governor. It could be similar to a cabinet position. He reports to the governor and serves at the will of the governor. Governors are already high-profile positions. Increasing his/her responsibility would not make the position more political.

[Repeal The 17th]

I’m for it.

[no dems]

BULL****..... Give politicians the power to choose my U.S. Senator. When pigs friggin’ fly!!!

SAY IT AIN’T SO JOE.

[conservativebuckeye]

Politically, this wasn’t very smart, but he’s absolutely right. It really boils down to this: Do you believe the Founding Fathers or Woodrow Wilson?

[Eye of Unk]

There is a saying that a person can be judged by the amount of or the degree of reaction from his or hers enemies.

Joe Miller is doing all the right things, he already has a hate fan base in Anchorage the liberal nirvanaville of Alaska.