For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Original Constitutional method:
1. Populace elects State legislature.
2. State Legislature elects Senators.

After the 17th Amendment:
1. Populace elects Senators.

Looks like we lost a layer to me. Maybe I am just overanalyzing it.

We did lose a layer, which was my point. The Senate had that extra layer for several reasons, but mainly a check against unabashed populist democracy. The Senate was and is expected to be more knowledgeable, skilled politicians (and despite the way I talk - truly skilled intelligent politicians are important especially in the areas of foreign diplomacy).

Would going backwards lead to soft corruption or other problems, probably, after all it wasn't changed because it was working perfectly. I suppose what I would like is a 60 year clause, after 10 cycles it goes to populace vote, then 10 cycles of state appointments, repeat. But that would be very silly. The main defense I have against the corruption argument, is that then the corruption would be more localized. the state legislature would be held accountable if your senators were not looking out for state interests at the federal level. Oil and banking interests would have to pander to individual state legislatures rather than one big democratic or republican pot.

Certainly it is not a cure all, but I go back to the division of power in the House and Senate, and then look at why the founding fathers set it up the way they did, and it makes a ton of sense to me, versus the false belief that the more the "people" vote the better. Pure Democracy is not a good government, and removing the State Legislatures' role in appointing Senators took us one step closer to it, and further away from the democratic republic we were.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

... Would going backwards lead to soft corruption or other problems, probably, after all it wasn't changed because it was working perfectly. ... The main defense I have against the corruption argument, is that then the corruption would be more localized. the state legislature would be held accountable if your senators were not looking out for state interests at the federal level. Oil and banking interests would have to pander to individual state legislatures rather than one big democratic or republican pot.

Certainly it is not a cure all, but I go back to the division of power in the House and Senate, and then look at why the founding fathers set it up the way they did, and it makes a ton of sense to me, versus the false belief that the more the "people" vote the better. Pure Democracy is not a good government, and removing the State Legislatures' role in appointing Senators took us one step closer to it, and further away from the democratic republic we were.

I agree with both bolded statements.

Interestingly, according to the Wikipedia article on the 17th Amendment, one of the arguments being advanced for its repeal - Senators are captives to special interests - was one of the reasons it was enacted in the first place.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I agree with both bolded statements.

Interestingly, according to the Wikipedia article on the 17th Amendment, one of the arguments being advanced for its repeal - Senators are captives to special interests - was one of the reasons it was enacted in the first place.

This makes sense. One point I think every person here (yes TTE and JTF also) will agree and concede. Those who represent powerful special interests will find a way to sway those who are elected to represent "the people".

This is why I said a cyclical approach would be interesting. When you put a damn in the water, it takes time for the new pathways to be carved, by opening the flood gates on a cycle, you can prevent those pathways from becoming carved to deep. If you had an alternating approach to Senatorial appointments, perhaps the dang lobbyists would not get as much of a chance to take hold.

While typing I wondered: what about a system where the legislature votes in a senator for the first 6 year term (thus having some concept of bringing in locally concerned politicos) and then having a state referendum at the 5 1/2 year mark. If the public votes the senator down, the legislature would then be tasked with appointing a new one at the end of the term.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Those who represent powerful special interests will find a way to sway those who are elected to represent "the people".

This is true. But let's make their job much harder. It's a lot tougher to influence (bribe/pressure) a majority of state legislators from diverse districts in 50 separate states than it is to pump money into an ad campaign or call blitz to the most populous areas of specific target states to influence elections.

It's like the spread offense, forcing the D to defend the whole width and length of the field puts more stress on it. If the D only has to defend a specific palyer or area of the field, that's much easier than having to defend everywhere/everyone.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

This is true. But let's make their job much harder. It's a lot tougher to influence (bribe/pressure) a majority of state legislators from diverse districts in 50 separate states than it is to pump money into an ad campaign or call blitz to the most populous areas of specific target states to influence elections.

It's like the spread offense, forcing the D to defend the whole width and length of the field puts more stress on it. If the D only has to defend a specific palyer or area of the field, that's much easier than having to defend everywhere/everyone.

I agree, the thing is over time those peddlers develop ways to do it, so, if we changed it now, at some point in the future we would need it changed again...