Say Anything Blog

Good luck with that.  Try telling citizens that their right to vote is being “toned down” a bit.  Plus who knows what sort of corruption could happen if senators didn’t need to be elected.  One party would rule each state.

I’m glad there is resistance, because there is probably someone who is better for the job than Gonzales.

First you’re glad that the Senate chose to reward the facilitation of torture with a fat raise and a promotion. Now you feel that citizens have too much representation in Washington and that needs to be curtailed.

Dude...WTF?

Don,

I’m not really discussing the Gonzales nomination… The point is that the STATES are not represented in the Federal Government.  They were before 1913, but now, both bodies of Congress are beholden to the voters.  This is not the way the Federal Government was framed for a reason!  The States need representation in the US Congress.  The Citizens elect the President and the House.  The Senate is supposed to be a representation of the will of the elected officials of the STATES.

Gonzalez CORRECTLY noted that Terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention.  Good God… you want to equate that with “Facilitation of Torture”?  You really need to check yourself in to a home with soft walls.

Besides, What TORTURE??????  Torture is when you cut off fingers, toes, ears, electrocute, stab, maim… Standing a bunch of TERRORISTS! in a naked human pig pile is NOT TORTURE.

I support repealing the 17th ammendment.  It would certainly give more power back to a state’s top official.

The way the federal government has run roughshod over state’s rights in recent years, that is a much needed thing.

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I agree with you, Rob. The founding fathers weren’t dumb. The House of Representatives was meant to represent the people, and was therefore based on population. The Senate was meant to represent the states, giving each state two votes.

Allowing senators to be elected by the people makes the Senate no different than the House, except their terms are for six years instead of two.

Does anyone know any background on why the 17th amendment changed the way senators are elected?

Steve:
There are three theories:

1. Some see the amendment as part of the Progressive movement, which swept the nation in the late 1800s and early 1900s, giving us direct elections, recall and referendums.

2. Others, however, believe the amendment resulted from the problems the prior constitutional system was creating in state legislatures, who under that system were charged with electing senators. These problems ranged from charges of bribery to unbreakable deadlocks.

Deadlocks happened from time to time when, because of party imbalance, a legislature was unable to muster a majority (as necessary under the 1866 law that controlled) in favor any person. The result was to leave the Senate seat empty and leave the state represented by only a single senator, not the constitutionally mandated two.

3. The true backers of the 17th amendment were special interests, which had had great difficultly influencing the system when state legislatures controlled the Senate. (Recall that it had been set up by the framers precisely to thwart them.) They hoped direct elections would increase their control, since they would let them appeal directly to the electorate, as well as provide their essential political fuel—money.

What needs do states have, in your definition of the term, that are different from the people who live there?  Please explain, since I seem to be missing some key principal of American politics.

“Democracy is a TERRIBLE form of government”

Okay now I understand.  You’d rather have something like a theocracy or an aristocrasy.

Federalism worked great when we had homogeneity within in each state.

WHAT??!??!??!  you actually, somehow, believe that there was EVER a homogeny within any state?  Even inside of TOWNS there is nothing close to homogeneous political views.

The PEOPLE are already represented by the President and the House.  The State congress is made up of elected officials who (use to) confirm the elected Governor’s appointees. 

The STATE needs a representative in the Federal congress… sometimes the interests of the State do not mesh with the interests of the constituents.  Sometimes we need officials in congress who are not beholden to the will of the people, but, rather, to the needs of their State.  The framers saw why it was needed… roughly based upon the British house of Lords. 

Democracy is a TERRIBLE form of government and the 17th Amendment brings us that much closer to Democracy.  MOB RULE.

Aren’t we supposed to be a government of the PEOPLE?  Aren’t the PEOPLE supposed to be represented?  Aren’t STATES composed of PEOPLE?

Yes, it’s the people who elect a state governor.  But, in politically divided states like mine (CO), allowing the governor to appoint senators disenfranchises nearly half the citizens.  In Colorado, we have a Republican governor, Bill Owens and a Senator from each party; Ken Salazar(D) and Wanye Allard(R).  If Governor Owens appointed senators, the people of our state would be misrepresented in the Senate. 

I believe the need for Federalism has faded away with with the times.  Federalism worked great when we had homogeneity within in each state.  It was a great tool to get the smaller colonies to join into our collective efforts.  But today we have so much diversity within the individual states, that STATE representation has lost all meaning except to the party that happens to be in power in that state on a given day.  A Senate that represents the PEOPLE makes much more sense to me.  This is the same reason why I believe the Electoral College has been failing the American people for quite some time now.

Oh… Theocracy or Aristocracy are very bad forms of government too.  The best forms of Government are the ones that allow people to choose their actions then deal with the consequences of those actions.  There are consequences to EVERYTHING.  Some are good… Some are bad… Some are big… Some are small… But every choice has a consequence.  When people are FORCED to act, think, and choose a specific way, they usually rebel.  People are most successful when they are given the power to decide their own destiny.

I’ll address this stuff out of order:

Okay now I understand. You’d rather have something like a theocracy or an aristocrasy.

Not at all!  If you read the “Federalist Papers” you will see that the framers of the Constitution were affraid of Democracy.  Domocracy is the Rule of the MOB.  Anything the majority supports goes.  What we live in is called a “Representative Republic” where the rule of LAW is paramount. 

Here’s a scenario:  Go into a room with 30 people.  Ask all of them to pull out all of the money that they have and put it on the table.  You will find that some of the people (probably the minority) will have over $20 on them.  Some will have $20 or less, and the rest will have no money.  Then ask them to take a vote to place all of the money and split it equally.  All those in favor say ‘aye’.  If there is a majority that say ‘aye’ then the ones with the money have now lost it.  While those that had none, now get it.  This is Democracy. 

What needs do states have, in your definition of the term, that are different from the people who live there? Please explain, since I seem to be missing some key principal of American politics.

I think Andrew did pretty well in addressing this:
3. The true backers of the 17th amendment were special interests, which had had great difficultly influencing the system when state legislatures controlled the Senate. (Recall that it had been set up by the framers precisely to thwart them.) They hoped direct elections would increase their control, since they would let them appeal directly to the electorate, as well as provide their essential political fuel — money.

Right now we have a congress that is entirely dependent upon the popular vote.  If a senator has to make a decision about appointments, or appropriations then he has to worry about how the vote will look to the constituents of the State rather than the Governor of the state.  Suppose that there is a vote in Congress for placing a toxic waste dump in a State.  The Citizens don’t want it because for obvious reasons, but the State leadership does.  Perhaps by accepting the dump the State will get some additional Highway funds.  The State needs to be represented in the US congress for thier side of the debate, while the House would represent the PEOPLE of the State on that side of the debate. 

By making the Senate a popular election, the State looses their voice in ANY and EVERY debate in the Federal Government.  The 17th amendment essentially silenced the voice of the State’s interest.  It’s now a one sided debate.  I know this analogy is not all that good.. Use some imagination… Where would the State, potentially, want something different from what the people of the State want.  Even if it’s the WRONG thing, they should still have a voice. 

Don’t forget that the framers of the Constitution wanted most of the power of the LAW to be held in the States government, not in the Federal government.  They also took great pains to not use the word DEMOCRACY in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights.  Read the “Federalist Papersâ€?.  It’s a compilation of letters written by the framers of the Constitution.  It explains many of their concerns and their visions.

When I first read this post this morning, I was thinking like that it didn’t really make that much difference.  Like Gluskape says, the state governments are answerable to the people—they can be voted out just as easily as the senators themselves could be. 

I continued considering it, though, because most of my studying has given me a very deep respect for the Founders, and I figured there must be some reason they designed the system that way.  I’m starting to believe that there are definite considerations that would matter to a State Government that probably wouldn’t matter to the state’s constituents. 

I can see why it would be important for state governments to have representation in the Federal government.  This is much more modern, probably not something the Founders, with their individualist streaks, considered, but it’s too easy for the Federal government, using systems like Medicaid, to make decisions that please the people but can cause undue hardship on the state governments that are put in charge of administering the system.

At the moment, I’m still not convinced where I stand on the 17th Amendment—I’d never given it any thought before—but I do believe it’s not as simple as it sounds at first.  I’ll have to do some research.

Thanks for the food for thought, Seth.  Though, I thought my days of spending weekends studying were over when I graduated.

State governments get bullied around a lot by the federal government.  Consider that the federal government used the threat of withholding highway appropriations from states to get said states to lower the blood alcohol level at which a person is considered drunk from .1 to .08.

Isn’t that something the state’s legislators should have decided for themselves while representing their constituents?  It seems to me that more state representation on the Federal level would go a long way toward preventing things like that.

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

No no… you are correct in your assertion.  On the next election cycle, the State leaders would probably be replaced, but the appointed Federal Senators would retain their seats until the next appointment cycle.  They would represent the STATE:  The needs of the State, The Desires of the State, which ultimately are determined by the State’s electorate, but the Senators would not be worried about the “political” consequences of their vote.  They would be concerned with how the vote affects their State.  Right now, they are more worried about how a decision affects the voter’s perception of them than how the decision affects the State.  There may be a bill that would affect the State in a positive way that is unpopular with the people… The State’s interests still need to be presented… they’re not now.

Who is “represented” in a Representative Republic?  What you’re saying makes it sound like State leaders do not have to be accountable to their constituents.  How did they get those positions?  If the citizens aren’t convinced that the toxic waste dump was a good thing, their state leaders will be voted out of office next election.  In the end, elected officials at every level have to think about how the people they represent will react to their decisions.

The original intent of America’s union was for the states to wield much, much more power than they have now.  Our current crop of legislators seem to have it in their heads that they can write laws on the national level to be applied to every state in the union.  Clearly, that isn’t the most efficient way of governing.  What’s good for California isn’t always good for North Dakota or Rhode Island or New York.

Putting a state’s Senate representatives under the direct control of a state’s governor you give the state government itself more representation in congress.  Of course, the state government is elected by the people so they can still be held accountable for appointing the wrong people to the Senate by voters.

Its how our system was supposed to run.  Sadly, we lost sight of that a long time ago.  I think we should return to it.

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

But withholding highway dollars affects a state’s constituents directly.  In this example the interests of the state were still in line with those of the people.  The only examples I can think of where the state and the people would really differ would require corruption in the state government.

Certainly there are issues that effect people in different states differently.  Take the issue of timber harvesting.  People in Kansas are not affected nearly as much by federal logging restrictions as those in Oregon.  That’s why residents of Oregon have representation at the federal level.

I’m still open for discussion on this.  I have not spent much time studying the intentions of our founders and plan to do so when I get the chance.  I DO want to understand the federalist perspective, because it plays such an important role in our Constitution.  But am not yet convinced that it has any relevance to me today other than burden. 

I myself have no attachment to my own state other than my love of the Colorado mountains.  And I feel that Colorado is well-represented in our Federal gov’t.  Maybe this is where my point of view comes from.

Thank you for your thoughts Robin!  And, everyone else too… It’s been a challenge for me to formulate coherent reasons to support the repeal of the 17th… Thankfully I see little reason to keep it, which makes it easier to justify its repeal…

take away our right to vote for who represents us in the senate! are you nuts?  this postition is supposed to represent the people, not the governor. his job is to run the state. if someone is making votes based on what the people want then the people should vote that person into office. to think that the governor or any other state official would be better at picking someone to represent our states is completely and utterly stupid. i live in illinois and the last thing i would want is Blagoadumbass deciding who is best for my state.  and if you think the people of this great nation would go for this i think that you are a moron, personally i would grab a gun and defend this right to the death before i let someone tell me that i couldn’t vote for the person making my decisions for me!!!

and if you think the people of this great nation would go for this i think that you are a moron

Todd is right on his assumption that the people would never go for it, no matter how logical it may seem.  I’m not exactly sure where I stand on the issue, but I’m pretty sure the majority of America would be outraged over repealing the 17th Amendment.  I guess the only thing that opponents of the amendment can do is try to educate the public on their stance.  But I won’t hold my breath.

this postition is supposed to represent the people

No, the House of Representatives represents the people.  The Senate was supposed to represent the state governments.

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Todd says, “...if you think the people of this great nation would go for this i think that you are a moron, personally i would grab a gun and defend this right to the death before i let someone tell me that i couldn’t vote for the person making my decisions for me!!!”

And this is how we don’t have a discussion.

And for the record - I support repealing the 17th Amendment. We do need to return the Senate back to state control and have the people represented in the federal government by Congress.  As it is right now, we essentially have two Congresses and we have lost that seperation of powers. Kudos to Seth Yantiss and Rob for making good points.  But as Don Meyer’s and Todd’s knee-jerk reactions show - things will remain the way they are because people will demogauge this issue in senseless emotional language.  You can look at those two and accurately guess at how it was presented in 1913. 

Open question to all: do you think someone like Ted Kennedy would have stayed on as long as he has had if it wasn’t for popular election of Senators?  And if you don’t see anything wrong with this; do you worry about special interests taking over from the assumed considerations of the “people”?

Wow! You would have a better possibility of repealing the 21st amendment (repeal of Prohibition) than this one. Most Americans value their right to vote and to have the option of throwing the bums out.

This doesn’t restirct a person’s right to vote at all, and if they want the bums thrown out they can always elect a new governor.

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob, yes, sort of. But it is a much more indirect means of doing so. Besides, I like my Senators just find. My Representative voted for the “Gulf of Texaco” resolution authorizing this insane war in Iraq and I have never forgiven him.

[...] Here’s a quick refresher of the issue… Repeal the 17th Amendment. [...]

now, the state legislatures are the ones who get to pick senatorial seats not the governor, even though perhaps he might nominate said seats.