Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jacquerie

There is no reason why a state couldn’t require that Senatorial candidates be chosen by their state legislatures and then placed before the citizens for the popular election. This would solve the problem without the need to repeal the 17th.


26 posted on 06/14/2014 7:14:01 AM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Uncle Sham

Of course there would...

Do you believe that a conservative, rural voter has as much representation as a liberal city dweller?

I can go to the polls and choose my rep who will choose my Senator... I know where he lives & works... I also know that he will choose someone to represent HIS interests as well...

Vicious ideologues would be few & far between...


28 posted on 06/14/2014 7:46:23 AM PDT by bfh333 ("We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Uncle Sham
One state recently had that before a committee of its legislature. I'm not sure of the outcome.

Still, if the constitution acts as it does, directly on the states, they should be in Congress without input from the people.

Consent of the Governed.

30 posted on 06/14/2014 9:06:34 AM PDT by Jacquerie (To restore the 10th Amendment, repeal the 17th. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Uncle Sham
This would solve the problem without the need to repeal the 17th.

The solution is not as simple as just putting a state-recommended slate of candidates before the people to take into the voting booth. The people today are already inundated with recommended slates of candidates from every special interest group that exists.

That is not the correct solution because it doesn't address one of the core problems, which is campaign funding. The side effect of the 17th amendment popular election of Senators is the need for those Senators and candidates to raise campaign funds in order to be elected. I don't know what campaign costs were like in 1913, but they are nothing like what it costs today, especially since the population of the United States has more than tripled since then.

Today, Senators are beholden to the Party apparatus for their campaign funding, so their first loyalties are to party leaders and not state legislators. In exchange for campaign financing, Senators are expected to support party agenda that are often in direct opposition to the interests of the people in their states.

Do away with the 17th amendment, and you do away with 33 of the most expensive elections that occur every two years, and you do away with the need to raise campaign cash. The repeal of the 17th amendment will have the side effect of weakening the influence that political parties have on setting the national agenda, and put more agenda-setting power back on the state legislatures who send the Senators to Congress.

-PJ

43 posted on 06/14/2014 11:36:33 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson