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

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Or we could go back to the way it was, having the governors appoint the Senators. We both know that isn't going to happen though. I would love to have McDonnel recall tweedle-dee and tweedle-dumb.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I would like the states to develop individual plans for the nomination of Senators, back as it was before they became elected by the general public.

How does adding another layer alleviate the motivation for soft corruption and the disregard of the will of the electorate by politicians?

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by saden1

How does adding another layer alleviate the motivation for soft corruption and the disregard the will of the electorate by politicians?

It isn't adding another layer. Having the citizenry vote on them was the extra layer.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

It isn't adding another layer. Having the citizenry vote on them was the extra layer.

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

The extra layer was originally there to have the Senate as a more powerful check on the House and on the Presidency, both elected by majority. However with states legislatures (elected from smaller more localized districts) appointing Senators it provides a powerful check to the "will of the majority". Appointment by state legislatures also reduces the power of the national party machines who influence senatorial elections.

Virginia is a perfect example. The two current state senators, elected by majority vote (strongest in Richmond/NoVA), are Democrats. However the VA state legislature is solidly Republican and IMO much more reflective of the entirety of the state.

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

The extra layer was originally there to have the Senate as a more powerful check on the House and on the Presidency, both elected by majority. However with states legislatures (elected from smaller more localized districts) appointing Senators it provides a powerful check to the "will of the majority". Appointment by state legislatures also reduces the power of the national party machines who influence senatorial elections.

Virginia is a perfect example. The two current state senators, elected by majority vote (strongest in Richmond/NoVA), are Democrats. However the VA state legislature is solidly Republican and IMO much more reflective of the entirety of the state.

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not entirely true this session. I believe the Dems have the state Senate. BTW this sort of thing is purely a product of partisan redistricting effort and you will therefore have the national party machine in the picture regardless of the changes you make.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Not entirely true this session. I believe the Dems have the state Senate. BTW this sort of thing is purely a product of partisan redistricting effort and you will therefore have the national party machine in the picture regardless of the changes you make.

You're right the Dems did manage to slide a couple more seats in there.

There will always be the partisan redistricting going on. Overall the more things are localized, or in the case of term limits, power spread out over time with different people, it makes the national party machines/lobbyists/special interests jobs harder and requires them to burn up more resources....thereby weakening their influence. Once folks see the reduced power of the RNC/DNC, you'll also see their contribution levels drop, weakening them further.

[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.