Posted on 12/13/2014 11:05:04 AM PST by SleeperCatcher
The 17th amendment has created a “winner take all” mentality in the nation’s capital, and the resulting bitterness that grips partisan Washington today is one direct result of its passage. “Interest groups understand that to impose one’s will on 300,000,000 Americans, one must influence one president, the selection of 5 supreme court justices, 51 (or 60) senators, and 218 representatives, a total of 275 individuals who live primarily in physical isolation, far away from those they govern,” says the Campaign to Restore Federalism.
(Excerpt) Read more at absoluterights.com ...
Correct
Plus, the current system favors the political parties.
Senators should be answerable to the local government officials, not the unelected party bosses who control the re-election purse strings.
The question isn’t Were there problems before the passage of the 17th Amendment? The issue is Did passage of the 17th Amendment make things better or worse?
Here’s a hint about whether REPEAL of the 17th Amendment would improve the U.S. Senate: Thirty states have Republican legislatures.
The ORIGINAL Constitutional arrangement was a compromise: House apportioned and elected by population, Senators elected by the States.
Why compromise with a compromise?
I worked in a bank in FL which had as a customer a certain Democratic senator. I took in their deposit, which were a few bundles of checks. Just for kicks, I looked through the checks to see who they were from. Out of over 100 checks, only three (3) were from anywhere in the state of FL. Most were from PAC’s and a lot of Northeastern lawyers, lots of lawyers. And this guy is supposed to represent FL. He represents who gives him money. I follow his votes (yes, he’s still in office)
Just threw it out there for discussion.
Same thing happened here in Nevada. Harry Reid’s money came from out of state, his “win” came from illegal aliens.
Both good points. Some have argued that the corruption of state legislators under the old system was exaggerated by reformers and the press, but bribery was a sensitive issue that caused public outrage that went beyond the current disapproval of campaign financing. Indirect elections often meant very direct payouts to legislators, in contrast to more indirect uses of money under the current system of direct election.
The old system was associated with the partiless republic that the Founders envisaged. They thought state legislators (and the electoral college) would automatically choose the most distinguished men in the state for the federal Senate. They didn't forsee that the contest -- both for the Senate and for President -- would be between organized party machines that might not leave much room for legislators' discretion.
Under the older system, state legislators could guarantee a senate seat to someone like Webster or Clay or Calhoun. A great man might become vice president or cabinet secretary or ambassador and find himself back in the Senate when a seat became open again in his home state. The Founders would have liked that. We might think it crony politics and the elite looking after itself. Once party politics and an industrialized national economy got under way, that option disappeared, and senatorial elections became contests between parties, not searches for the person state legislators might regard as most qualified.
As the government and the party system developed the more ambitious politicians gravitated to Washington. Those who stayed in the state legislators were more than willing to play a secondary rule to the feds, especially after the income tax amendment greatly increased federal revenues. At this point, I don't see state legislators fighting to take back power -- especially if it involves greater responsibility.
The two reasons Hamilton gave for indirect election were that it allowed for the selection of more distinguished men than than direct election and that it would bind the states closer to the federal government. The other Founders may well have felt very differently, but Hamilton wanted state legislators to choose the senators to decrease the independent power of the states, rather than to increase it, if what I've read is correct.
Thanks for reminding me. The repeal 17A amendment also needs a provision to prohibit political party support for federal legislative and executive branches. After all, given that one of the very few powers that the feds have that could affect most citizens on an almost daily basis is deciding policy for the US Mail Service (1.8.7), I don’t think that we need political parties fighting for control of that service.
The repeal 17A amendment also needs a provision to restore electoral college. Again, and military issues aside, since the only domestic bills that president should sign or veto should be related to deciding policy for the US Mail Service, citizens don’t really need to concern themselves about who is in the Oval Office.
Thank you as I am sick of posting this point ad nauseum.
That being said close your eyes and try to picture what the government would look like if only property owners were allowed to vote. Sad but true.
Under previous management, Heritage Foundation and other establishment conservative organizations actively practiced the model described. They believed that they only needed to “educate” 500 people in DC to the “truth” and could ignore everyone outside the beltway.
Mini-versions of that were preached by CLI-Campaign Leadership Institute to local activists: That there were only a handful of people who controlled each state and all we needed to do was educate that handful to the truth and the state would do the right thing.
These were the same people who cluelessly rejoiced that they had “won the debate” when the USSR collapsed.
The big shift in the conservative movement to DeMint and Heritage Action, and to Koch and AFP and TeaParty types is a recognition that those outside the beltway do count, do need to be educated, and do need to be activated.
One of the splits in the party, and movement is between those who still have the old beltway mentality and those with the new decentralized mentality.
Without repeal of the 17th there is no Federalism.
Just stands to reason, eh ?
Get rid of 16th, 17th, and 19th...
Nope.
I agree with the need to repeal the 17th amendment, but political reality must be observed and there are other solutions to have the same effect which may be more politically expedient such as state legislative recall to turn senators into ambassadors again.
“Why compromise with a compromise?”
I agree we should be sneaky and turn the senate into a body of ambassadors with direct recall by mere majority legislative vote.
Call it ‘democracy’ to our leftist educated population and sell it like any other kind of recall.
After the 17th id rank the 14th as the most destructive, although the 14th really is in a league of its own as a source of boundless federal abuses from the bench none of which were intended of course but the 14th seems to be the Federal Employees Favorite Wipping boy nonetheless which is the only reason #14 ranks below that of the 17th is the fact that it was abused.
Repeal the 17th Amendment or disband the Senate. We don't need both, one or the other is not necessary.
“Non-partisan” redistricting (also known as democrat redistricting) would be a disaster. We have our biggest edge in leg seats now since the 20’s if not ever, pissing away control over redistricting would be literally the stupidest thing we could do. In Cali that garbage has proved even worse than if the democrat legislature had drawn the lines, Arizona rats could hardly have hoped for a better map than given by “independent” redistricting. In Florida stupid “fairness” guidelines effed us over. No no no, 100,000 times no. Complaining about “malapportioned districts” is the siren song of disgruntled leftists, don’t fall for it.
Allowing a small number of politicians to choose Senators was already a disaster and would be a bigger one today, no matter what the state leg districts are like. It’s a moronic idea that would have the exact opposite of it’s intended effect and fools can discuss it as much as they like, it will not ever happen, EVER, PERIOD. If Republicans campaigned in favor of such a thing it would be a gigantic wedge issue, huge electoral loser.
Conservatives should be discussing how to keep Obama unpopular and win the next Presidential election, not pretending wild schemes and constitutional changes that have zero chance of passing are the answer.
Want a useful idea? Tell Michigan to divide it’s electoral votes by congressional district, that would aid victory (and give libtard newspapers an aneurysm).
LMAO. Can you believe this bilge?
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.