*sigh* Why‽ Why do want to take are ability to vote for are US Senators away from us?
Do you elect all your judges? You may elect local judges, but many places do not, and you certainly don’t elect Federal judges. Do you elect the president’s Cabinet? Do you elect the parliamentarian? Do you elect who becomes Speaker of the House? Do you choose the president’s running mate when you nominate your party’s presidential candidate?
Senators are different than judges, parliamentarians, and the Speaker of the House.
And?
My point is that there is nothing inherent in any particular office that requires that senators be voted in directly.
I totally disagree. The US Senate represent one half of the legislative branch of our federal government. Heck if you can’t see why they should be elected, why should the House of Representative? Why should the President? Why have any elected office?
That is not the point of my argument. I am arguing for repeal of the 17th Amendment. They would still be elected, and even elected by the people…just indirectly. But your argument of going to the opposite extreme does not strengthen your argument of why they should be directly elected.
But in answer to your question, it’s another separation of power.
Let me give you an example of how we are governed by unelected bodies: Have you ever heard of Accutane? It is a prescription medication for acne. If you have acne problems and went to your doctor for a prescription, he would say, “Sorry, I can’t do that. It’s been pulled from the market by the FDA.” Yes, the Food and Drug Administration, an unelected federal agency determined that selling Accutane is now illegal. What gives this body power to do this? Well, Congress simply cannot create every single law and oversee every single aspect of regulating American life. Therefore, they have created agencies that help oversee these kinds of things…agencies filled with unelected members. Congress makes a broad law stating, “Drug companies can’t sell bad drugs, and we’re creating to FDA to see to it that it happens.” Then the FDA follows through.
In the medical field, we are governed very heavily by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which in turn is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, who is headed by the (unelected) Cabinet-level Secretary of Health and Human Services. But it is CMS that makes the specifics of what we in the medical field can and can’t do. While overseen by the government, the laws they make do not get approved by the legislature or the president’s Cabinet. They make the laws largely independently of the actual elected representatives. In a sense, we indirectly elect this body to govern our medical care.
Why don’t you get upset that the other offices are not voted in, or not voted in directly (such as the Speaker)?
Why don’t we have the individual county governments in your state elect people to your state senate?
Or why not individual cities? Or individual households? Yes, it would not be cumbersome at all. The United Households of America has a nice ring to it 😉 In all seriousness, we are divided into states for a reason, and those states were supposed to maintain sovereignty as often as possible, even above the federal level. This has been undermined over the years, but I believe it is still an essential part of our nation that we should get back to. A county level sovereignty was never intended, nor is it practical.
There are so many roles we do not elect? It’s not like it undermines democracy. Repealing the 17th Amendment is one of the ways I favor the democratic republic government.
I don’t get how.
Because we are represented in a different manner. Our federal judges also represent us, though they represent the collective morality of the nation. Yet, they are not elected. Rather, they are nominated and approved by bodies that have been elected. In a sense, we elect them as well…indirectly.
Consider this: a senator is elected for six years, while a congressperson is elected for only two; senators are always two per state, while congresspeople reflect the general population. These traits were part of the Great Compromise of 1787 to ensure that small states were not overpowered by large states. But wait a second! Now that the people elect these individuals directly, these traits do not match the power granted a senator.
How does how the Senators are elected alter the traits or anything about the Great Compromise?
Because of the intent behind that compromise. It was intended that they represent the states on equal ground.
They still are, whether the people elect the members or the state government does.
Then why the need for equal representation?
Representing the people of those states is not the same thing because the difference in size/population has little meaning when representing the people directly.
They still represent the state.
Now a senator is nearly impossible to remove from office until he/she drops dead or decides to throw in the towel.
Senators can be defeated in elections. We can make it easier to remove US Senators from office if we need to without taking away the peoples’ right to vote.
I’m listening.
For what? I have to explain you how we can make it easier to remove US Senators???
I was open to ideas!!!
More frequent elections allow for congresspeople to be replaced more readily.
fine, change the term limits for Senators. But still have them elected by the people.
You mean the term lengths, though I would not squawk at term limits either. They are overdue!
Yes, I meant term lengths.
Also, if the population itself, instead of the state government, directly elect senators, then what is the point of having two per state?
The founders decided that we needed one legislative body where all the states were represented equally.
Listen, if representing a state government, then two senators representing that government represents equal footing. But if they are representing the state population, what difference does it make? Why should the people of North Dakota have the same amount of influence as the people of New York in federal decisions? Do you think the people care?
I don’t get your point here. The founds wanted each state represented equally in the Senate. That is done whether the people in the state elect them or whether they are elected by the state government.
Why is it necessary when it makes little difference in the states’ interest? Do you care about the details of Pennsylvania’s budget? Are you aware of any law enforcement problems? Do you know about the opiate crisis as it relates to your state? Is it possible that your state legislators might know this info better?
And yet, while I am suggesting that we return this power to the state legislators, I am in no way suggesting that we take power from the people in terms of the House. The House is still required in order to pass a bill. The Senate cannot do it alone. The people still have their voice.
The point of the Great Compromise is rooted in the nature of the American federation. E Pluribus Unum - Of many, one. The purpose was to guarantee that the rights of the states’ governments were given equal treatment. At the time, loyalty to your state was greater than loyalty to the country. States wanted an equal standing at the federal negotiating table
Since the Civil War, we have gotten away from that trend, and we likewise have abandoned the purpose of the indirect election. Now, I see little reason to fret that my state sends as many senators to Congress as California. I don’t really care that my state gets equal representation in that house.The fact that loyalty to your state has changed since the civil war is another reason to drop the idea of state legislators picking the US Senators.
I am suggesting that we should give the states more power. Decentralization of power was a major part of the Constitution. The more we give to the feds, the less they will take interest in local issues and be more concerned with things nationwide. Even worse, the more power we give to the feds, the better position to seize more power and have no one to stop them. Having 50 states keeping each other in check is more desirable than an all powerful federal government with no oversight.
We are not safeguarding the small states when we are granting the general population proportionally larger power than the large states. We are simply divvying out the power of everyone’s vote unfairly.
I am not understanding you here. Whether elected by the people or by state legislatures, the US Senate would still represents each state equally as the founders intended.
See above.
I still don’t understand.
Pennsylvania has 18 Congressmen representing the people. This is good because it makes sure that Nebraska, with a much smaller population, only has 3 Congresspeople who can argue for the needs of the state on the federal stage. The needs of the country as a whole outweigh Nebraska. Yet, they both have 2 senators each. How are the senators representing the states themselves? The way I see it, the state government understands the specific needs of the states and advocates for state policy on a federal level. The individual voters are mostly interested in how the Senate will dictate federal policy. It devalues the states’ needs, I feel, because the people are generally more aware of federal issues than state issues, even in their own state.
Now, look at the positives of having the state legislature make the call.
Yeah, US Senators win their seats by lining the pockets and kissing the a** of the members of the state legislatures and making corrupt deals. No thanks.
That is called a political bribe and it is illegal.
And of course our great members of the state legislators would never stoop to do something under the table. perish the thought. Do you honestly expect me to believe that the US Senate elections in the state legislators would never ever be corrupt? It would never be about who is doing the most favors for members of the state legislators. It would never be about getting the friends of the members of the state legislators comfy jobs in Washington? Come on!
And of course a directly elected senator would never take a bribe either.
Or perhaps other indirectly or unelected officials are always taking bribes to behave in a certain way. I’ll bet that’s why the FDA pulled Accutane.
Yes, I know they’re all crooked, but I don’t see them being any less crooked when they can just be bribed by someone else.
What is not illegal, however, is lobbyists, wealthy donors, and corporations kissing the a** of directly elected senators to ensure they vote the way those influential supports desire. Might it not be nice to ensure that those interfering parties actually don’t get much say in the senators’ decision-making?
They still will even with the Senators being elected by the state legislators. Heck you could make the same argument for having the state governments pick members of the House of Representatives.
See above.
First, most people are set in their ways. Elections are decided almost entirely on the whims of the relatively few whose minds are not made up. The rest is left up to the enthusiasm of those committed to their worldview, whether they will get out and vote. But the end result on a large scale is what is called “the tyranny of the majority.”
Sorry, not following you here. Elections are decided by the voters, all of the voters.
Look at the referendum on the U.K.'s withdrawal from the EU. If you think about it, most people probably did not have their minds changed from the beginning to the end of the process.
So?
But a relatively few did, and thus determined what, in my mind, was an economic catastrophe for Europe.
No, the few that changed their minds plus those that already had their minds made up, determined things.
What you fail to see is that large bodies of people who simply live out their lives act in a more fickle manner than a small body that deliberates over an issue. I was explaining why: because of the fairweathered decision-making of a relative few.
Nonetheless, it is still the people deciding things. I think that is what America is about.
Yes, but the people can also choose wrong. That’s why power is divided. That’s why we have a democratic republic instead of a direct democracy. That’s why all these different bodies of power keep each other in check.
What is interesting about deliberative bodies instead of direct democracy is that policy change does not depend on the whims of a relative few.
Again direct democracy does not depend on the whims of a few, but the whims of all that vote. I don’t get why you think the people don’t matter just because they already have their minds made up. This confuses me.
People debate and make decisions they believe will be in the lasting interest of the people.
real honest debates in Federal and state deliberative bodies are far and few between. Most of the “debates” grandstanding and for show. They come in with their minds made up long before “debate” begins.
Regardless of your cynicism about the reality of those debates, the fact of the matter is that a smaller body will make fewer decisions that change with the wind. The Senate can stop the hasty actions of the House, if needed.
The Senate can’t do that now?
I’m talking about those who choose the senators not making a rash decision in whom they select, as opposed to a directly elected senator swept in by the Occupy Wallstreet movement or the Tea Party movement.
Are you aware of the two bodies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom? One is a directly elected body. This is the lower house, the House of Commons. Policy is primarily determined there.
The upper house, the House of Lords, is completely unelected. Though it has changed drastically over the years, it’s role is different than the HoC, particularly in that it cannot indefinitely stop a bill from passing, but it can delay it and cause the HoC to rethink its approach. Its role, like the Senate, is to result in more deliberation. And the U.K. seems to work pretty well.
I think there are many that would want to do away with the House of Lords or have them elected. I know I would be totally against this unelected legislative body. The way the UK does it smacks of elitism. Definitely not for America.
It does, but my point is that it does serve a valuable role in its current function.
Those decision are not sudden, but rather systematic and slow. Indirect elections can actually put a brake on kneejerk reactions. Take a look at this article where “the majority” of Britons actually oppose Brexit now.
53% to 47%, people now oppose it. Yet, that really represents the minds changing of only a relative few.
The point you are missing is that the few minds changed on matter because the numbers on both sides as a whole are very very close. This isn’t a few people deciding this, this is the whole of the country. If 90% had either voted to stay or voted to go, the minds of a few wouldn’t affect the decision at all.
The few had such an effect because the country was already just about split down the middle on the issue, and still are.
See above.
My point still holds true.
Your point still misses my point, which is that the “voice of the people” really only represents the whims of a relative few. I say this because there is a greater steadiness in the smaller body than the people as a whole, and that steadiness can temper the ever changing general populace. On the other hand, the vote of the general population in electing members of the House of Representatives would balance the inflexibility in the election of senators, one would hope.
If we were to allow our state legislatures to have more of a role in the electing federal officers (i.e. senators), think of the positives. First, Americans would pay more attention to their local elections, making sure they put state legislators in place with whom they agree, and not simply voting for the president of their choice, and then marking all the members of the same party on the rest of the ticket.
Nothing is stopping the people from paying due respect to the local elections already. They are important enough already without the US Senate seats in the balance.
It’s not about respect. It’s about attention.
That is what I meant by respect, giving the elections due attention.
And I’m talking about how laws influence the way people behave. People naturally ignore local elections in greater amounts and turn out for national elections, most heavily for the presidential election.
That is their own fault. The people are free give the local elections all the attention they require. If they don’t, shame on the people.
It is also people’s own fault that they smoke, elect white supremacist politicians, perpetuated slavery, and so forth. Changes in policy affect people’s behavior. If our elected officials are wise, they would change policy to change people’s behavior for the better (see anti-smoking legislation, for example).
That’s just human behavior, knowing which election might make the biggest difference in their lives.
It is also stupid. I wish people wouldn’t do it. I always consider carefully every decision on the ballot.
You are literally the exception.
Second, it would allow for the legislators, who are more keenly aware of the states’ fiscal and policy needs than the average state resident, to elect a senator to represent the state government’s needs.
And I am sure state legislators would never ever put their own self interests or that of their party ahead of what was best for the state.
Why this bitter outlook towards state legislatures?
Its called politics.
Even in our current system, politics and politicians are equally dishonest in nature.
Do you trust your directly elected senators to be more upstanding?
No, I don’t trust any politician.
In reality, your life should be shaped more by your state laws and lawmakers. That’s the way it was intended, and even with the erosion of state sovereignty, the state government still plays a heavier role than the federal government in your life. In the most ideal setting, I feel the state legislatures should be able to have a greater impact on federal policy.
Well that has changed more and more since the Civil War.
That is not a desirable change. See above.
Remember, the state legislators are still directly elected. Now, they’ll actually be better able to perform their jobs because the federal senators would be answerable to them.
I’d rather the US Senators be answerable to the people than bureaucrats in the state legislators
The House of Representatives already does that.
I want both house to be answerable to the people.
Both would be. One would just have an intermediary body.
There was a reason for the separate bodies, a reason which has been lost with Amendment #17.
nope.
Agh! Defeated in mortal combat! 😉 I don’t know why you feel the need to respond to every sentence. Just respond when it actually contributes, silly Warb 😃
And third, speaking of being answerable to them, if the senators get out of line, the state legislator could more easily remove them than we as a general population can.
Again we can make it easier to remove US Senators when necessary without taking away the peoples’ right to vote.
Fourth, those brakes I was talking about…senators would be less likely to make snap decisions based on the passing popularity of an item and would be more likely to represent the needs of the deliberative body on the state level.
But does that deliberative body always represent the will of the people of the state? I don’t think so.
Warbler, that’s my point. The tyranny of the majority is a real thing.
better the tyranny of the majority of the people, than the tyranny of the party in control of the state legislature.
I don’t remember surrendering all direct election power. Just that of the election of the federal senators. You would still directly elect the vast majority of your representatives, from the local level to the president.
Sometimes, it’s better not to represent the will of the majority, particularly on a hot issue.
That is why we have deliberative bodies rather than direct democracy.
Like the state legislature?
Sometimes, it’s better to actually have people slow down and talk about things. Heck, the majority voted for Bush in 2004, though in the end, most people didn’t like him. Why don’t we throw out our representatives the moment theye stop representing the will of the people? Because those representatives have the opportunity to take part in a deliberative process and not act on impulse, like the general public have
The deliberative process is still there whether the US Senators are elected by the people or by the state governments.
But not for the purpose I am advocating.
(again, I cite the example that it only takes a relatively few impulsive changes of mind to change the actual majority).
again, that is only true when the people are split down the middle on an issue.
And that’s actually pretty often. Even a 60-40 split only requires 10.000000001% to change their mind. That’s a relatively small portion of the given population.
It may seem counterintuitive, but I believe repealing the 17 Amendment would actually improve the legislative process on the state and federal levels.
I couldn’t disagree with you more.
You’ve also forgotten about the problem of gerrymandering. It is possible due to gerrymandering(and it can even happen with out it), that the party in control of a state legislator is not the party favored by the people of the state. I think this is true in Pennsylvania right now. The Republicans are in control of the state legislator, but I think the majority of the people are Democrats. If we did things your way, the state would have Republican US Senators, even though the people would want Democrat US Senators.
Um…Senator Toomey is a Republican, directly elected by the people, Warb.
Way to totally ignore my point. gerrymandering is a thing, it exists and you know it. You also know it can be used undermine the will of the people and keep the minority party in control of a state legislature.
I’m not ignoring your point, but I don’t understand your hostility in this reply. I don’t feel I’ve been rude, so I don’t know why you’re getting worked up. Maybe I didn’t understand your point. Nevertheless, I don’t see how gerrymandering would play a role in this issue. See my reply to Catbus.
But again, that is the point. If the majority elected a Republican majority legislature, then they shouldn’t be surprised when that legislature elects a Republican senator.
With gerrymandering it is possible that the majority vote Democratic and still the Republicans end up in control of the state legislature.
Let us create a pretend state. It has 15 people in it. It has 8 Democrats and 7 Republicans. They are split up into 5 districts. They vote to elect members of the state legislature. Here are the results (D for voting democrat, D for voting republican
District 1: D,D,D
District 2: D,D,D
District 3: R,R,D
District 4: R,R,D
District 5: R,R,R
The result: 2 democrats and 3 republicans are elected to the state legislature. They in turn elect two Republicans to the US Senate, even though the majority of the state would want two Democrats to be the US Senators.
See the problem?
I wish I had more time. Now that I am researching a bit more, I can see the problem of gerrymandering being more of an issue than I’d identified, even with my previous statement in this very reply. But, as you suggested that we can alter the law to more easily remove senators, could we not also alter the law to minimize gerrymandering? If we were able to do so, would that be more of a compromise for you?
Speaking of the supposed ill of having representatives not always represent the will of the people, remember that sometimes, the majority may lean enough one way to put a representative in place that the people would not normally elect. Nevertheless, those representatives must represent according to what they were elected to do, even if it differs from the will of the people.
Lyman Hall said:
Mr. Secretary — Georgia seems to be split right down the middle on this issue [of American independence]. The people are against it—and I’m for it. But I’m afraid I’m not yet certain whether representing the people means relying on their judgment or on my own. So in all fairness, until I can figure it out, I’d better lean a little toward their side.
Lyman Hall later said:
In trying to resolve my dilemma I remembered something I’d once read, ‘that a representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion.’ It was written by Edmund Burke, a member of the British Parliament.
You quote 1776, well played.
I thought so 😉
It’s okay to have reps that only represent a freeze frame of the electorate in place at the time of his/her election. It’s inevitable and allows for slow, steady change.
You may have a point here, but still to me it seems un-American to take my vote from me.
Just one more thought on the matter, and then I probably will have to leave it alone till tomorrow: if an amendment was made that allowed you to elect the Supreme Court justices, and then you realized that the outcome resulted in judges being too influenced by politics rather than what they feel is proper interpretation of the Constitution, would you be in favor of repealing that amendment? It would be taking away your vote…but it might be for the better function of our political system.
If I were able to persuade you that repealing the 17th Amendment would result in a better functioning system, wouldn’t you then be willing to give up your vote in this case? It may go contrary to the immediate thought of, “Hey, more votes means more power to the people! Woohoo!” But so would taking away voting for the SCOTUS. So, putting aside the emotional appeal, would you be willing to change your mind based entirely on logical appeal?