No, you have to remember that when the Constitution was ratified the State governments were considered to be the primary 

 

 

Sorry bro, Madison in Federalist #62:

 

"II. It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems."

He's right though. It was taken out of states hands for many reason corruption and bribery being a major one. 

 

I understand originally the states were the primary. I am only saying that the purpose of the Connecticut Compromise was so that states with smaller populations had equal representation in one house and a proportional representation in the other. I don't see how that makes Senators not representatives of the people. It just makes their constituency much larger. If the state is for the people (which I believe to be the case) then the state's representatives are, by extension, representatives of the people of those states. 

---

I think, instead of giving more power to the people, repealing the 17th Amendment would give more power to the legislatures.   To me, that seems to put more power into the hands of the politicians and less into the hands of the people.   If I can't vote directly for my Senator, but instead I have to vote for a politician who then votes for my Senator, that means it's not my Senator, it's his Senator.   

 

The whole thing is kind of paternalistic.   It's like you think the legislature would make a better choice of Senator than I would.  

 

There would be so much deal-making and horse-trading in the legislature it would be ridiculous.   Legislators would be selling their souls to get the votes from their colleagues so they could become a US Senator.   

 

The way that The Constitution was written, you weren't supposed to vote directly for your Senator.  The Senate represents the States.  They are supposed to look out for the interests of their respective State Government, not constituents.  Representing individuals is (was) the job of the House of Representatives.

 

It gives power to the people who reside in each State to vote for their respective legislators that are going to look out for the best interests of their State.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

The way that The Constitution was written, you weren't supposed to vote directly for your Senator.  The Senate represents the States.  They are supposed to look out for the interests of their respective State Government, not constituents.  Representing individuals is (was) the job of the House of Representatives.

 

It gives power to the people who reside in each State to vote for their respective legislators that are going to look out for the best interests of their State.

True enough but like with a lot of things it changed with the times, in this case due to corruption and bribery mostly. 

---

No, you have to remember that when the Constitution was ratified the State governments were considered to be the primary 

 

 

Sorry bro, Madison in Federalist #62:

 

"II. It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems."

 

Yeah, you're right.   I was talking about the Connecticut Compromise but you are right, that came after the original design, which was to have Senators elected by state legislatures.  

 

That said, don't you think having Senators elected by the politicians in the legislature would lead to a corrupt process?   That's one of the reasons they passed the 17th Amendment in the first place: allegations that Senate seats were being bought and sold in the state legislatures. 

---

Yeah, you're right.   I was talking about the Connecticut Compromise but you are right, that came after the original design, which was to have Senators elected by state legislatures.  

 

That said, don't you think having Senators elected by the politicians in the legislature would lead to a corrupt process?   That's one of the reasons they passed the 17th Amendment in the first place: allegations that Senate seats were being bought and sold in the state legislatures. 

 

When you consider that the intention was to prevent an all-powerful federal government then having a specific portion of that government responsible only to the member states made perfect sense. The 17th contributed more to the demise of Federalism and State's rights than anything outside the Civil War itself. Now we have a federal government who takes from the states as it sees fit and then turns around and bullies them to enact legislation using the very funds they've taken from those states. As for corruption, it's not like it got better, D.C is still the hive of scum and villany its always been.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

When you consider that the intention was to prevent an all-powerful federal government then having a specific portion of that government responsible only to the member states made perfect sense. The 17th contributed more to the demise of Federalism and State's rights than anything outside the Civil War itself. Now we have a federal government who takes from the states as it sees fit and then turns around and bullies them to enact legislation using the very funds they've taken from those states. As for corruption, it's not like it got better, D.C is still the hive of scum and villany its always been.

 

But don't you think that if we have state legislators electing our Senators, then the big money will start flowing into the campaign coffers of state legislators, and Pacs will be set up to elect state legislators who will vote for certain Senate candidates, and the corruption in Washington will make its way into our state legislatures (if it's not there already)?  

 

Plus, when I decide whom to vote for in a state legislative race, should my decision be based on how that legislator would cast his vote for Senator?   Or should it be based on how that person would represent me in the state legislature?  

 

If candidates for state legislature run a campaign based on how they will cast their vote for US Senator, as they inevitably would, why wouldn't I want to cast a direct vote for US Senate candidate X, instead of voting for someone who has pledged to vote for US Senate candidate X?

 

Besides, I just cannot go along with the idea that having someone select my US Senator for me will result in that Senator representing me better than if I voted for him directly. 

 

Finally, and this is not an argument against it, do you think a repeal of the 17th Amendment would have a snowball's chance in hell of passing?   Especially since it would require a 2/3 vote in both House and Senate to be initiated in the first place?  

---

When you consider that the intention was to prevent an all-powerful federal government then having a specific portion of that government responsible only to the member states made perfect sense. The 17th contributed more to the demise of Federalism and State's rights than anything outside the Civil War itself. Now we have a federal government who takes from the states as it sees fit and then turns around and bullies them to enact legislation using the very funds they've taken from those states. As for corruption, it's not like it got better, D.C is still the hive of scum and villany its always been.

Yes but's due to politicians being legally bribed now instead of illegally bribed behind closed doors. 

---

Yes, that's actually a much better way of saying it.


Here's an interesting thought... hard core "progressives" and hard core libertarians are on the same page, I think, when it comes to certain issues. One of them, in my opinion is regarding who our representatives are actually working for.


There's got to be some policy to fix this problem that both sides could come together to resolve. Thoughts?

I am not sure how to implement it but if all bills presented to congress were single issue items and there was a law prohibiting attachments and riders this issue would take care of itself.  The stuff that gets attached to emergency spending bills for example would never, ever, ever pass on their own merit, heck they would never even be presented.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

I am not sure how to implement it but if all bills presented to congress were single issue items and there was a law prohibiting attachments and riders this issue would take care of itself.  The stuff that gets attached to emergency spending bills for example would never, ever, ever pass on their own merit, heck they would never even be presented.

Yup this is one of the worst parts left out of the "How a bill becomes a law" video from yesteryear.

---