Senators selected by the state legislatures would be a more broadly viewed benchmark for the electorate to see what they are actually voting into their state offices.cowboycwr said:
No this is fine.
I would rather have a say in government officials then it being an inside group of politicians doing it.
An amendment that is needed is term limits for Congress. Probably two terms for senator and 5 for House. No more career politicians.
Porteroso said:
It takes power from the people and gives it to politicians. Maybe that is better, I don't know, but I doubt it.
EatMoreSalmon said:Senators selected by the state legislatures would be a more broadly viewed benchmark for the electorate to see what they are actually voting into their state offices.cowboycwr said:
No this is fine.
I would rather have a say in government officials then it being an inside group of politicians doing it.
An amendment that is needed is term limits for Congress. Probably two terms for senator and 5 for House. No more career politicians.
Puts more attention on the quality of state elected politicians.
From the article:
Yes, some strident critics accuse those advocating for repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment of removing the people's "right" to choose their representatives in Washington. They characterize this return to the Constitution's original structure as a fringe right-wing idea driven by bigotry that aims to take away power from the American people.
This mendacious scare-mongering deserves a response. First of all, Americans have never had a right to elect their senators. They do have a right to elect their representatives to the House, and they still would if the Seventeenth Amendment were repealed tomorrow. The houses of Congress were always intended to serve two separate functions based on who elected their inhabitants. Moreover, the people would still be able to influence legislative election of senators by voting for state representatives. Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would not be undemocratic or un-American in the slightest.
Personally heard Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock in a small group answer someone who asked if he was considering a run for the Governor's office, "Why would I want to give up all this power?"cowboycwr said:
No they wouldn't. They would be a broader view of the state reps that elect them. Most likely based on whichever candidate can buy off or sweet talk the state reps.
If and this is a huge IF, the people paid more attention to state politics then it could be a good idea. But most Americans probably couldn't even tell you who their state rep is. Let alone their House rep.
Heck most people in Texas don't realize the Lt governor is probably more important of an election than governor because they control the state legislature (basically) by controlling the flow of proposed bills and voting.
Bolded is the very problem created by lessening state legislature power.cowboycwr said:EatMoreSalmon said:Senators selected by the state legislatures would be a more broadly viewed benchmark for the electorate to see what they are actually voting into their state offices.cowboycwr said:
No this is fine.
I would rather have a say in government officials then it being an inside group of politicians doing it.
An amendment that is needed is term limits for Congress. Probably two terms for senator and 5 for House. No more career politicians.
Puts more attention on the quality of state elected politicians.
From the article:
Yes, some strident critics accuse those advocating for repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment of removing the people's "right" to choose their representatives in Washington. They characterize this return to the Constitution's original structure as a fringe right-wing idea driven by bigotry that aims to take away power from the American people.
This mendacious scare-mongering deserves a response. First of all, Americans have never had a right to elect their senators. They do have a right to elect their representatives to the House, and they still would if the Seventeenth Amendment were repealed tomorrow. The houses of Congress were always intended to serve two separate functions based on who elected their inhabitants. Moreover, the people would still be able to influence legislative election of senators by voting for state representatives. Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would not be undemocratic or un-American in the slightest.
No they wouldn't. They would be a broader view of the state reps that elect them. Most likely based on whichever candidate can buy off or sweet talk the state reps.
If and this is a huge IF, the people paid more attention to state politics then it could be a good idea. But most Americans probably couldn't even tell you who their state rep is. Let alone their House rep.
Heck most people in Texas don't realize the Lt governor is probably more important of an election than governor because they control the state legislature (basically) by controlling the flow of proposed bills and voting.
Fre3dombear said:Porteroso said:
It takes power from the people and gives it to politicians. Maybe that is better, I don't know, but I doubt it.
Maybe that is better?
