Repealing the 17th?

[Herstal]

Have you ever heard of a movement to repeal the 17th Amendment? Doing so would cause Senators to be elected by the state legislatures instead of by popular vote. What would the positives be? What would the negatives be?

[Vickers]

1. Where did you hear this?

:shrug:

[Herstal]

4. An attorney I know.

I had never heard of it until he mentioned it. On its face, it sounds good. The House elected by the people, the Senate elected by the states. What would potential ups and downs be?

[bluerum]

2. I would prefer a vote. Thank you though. eom

[northzax]

3. actually, what it would do

and I haven't heard anything about it, is allow states to choose the method of election.

[happyslug]

5. The Positive is that Senators will no longer Campaign

The Negative is potential Senators will just Lobby their State Legislatures instead. Pick your poison, I just prefer my Senator to pander to me as a Voter instead of pandering to the State Legislators.

[Herstal]

6. that is a good thought.

Would there be a decrease in pork? what about mandates on the states?

[happyslug]

13. Reduction in pork? No way.

Pork is how most politicians stay elected, it may switch from going to what a large group of Voters want to what a large number of State Legislators want, but pork will survive.

Mandates to the States? Probably no affect, "Unfunded Mandates" is more a request for FEDERAL FUNDING then it is an attack on the Mandates. People forget that in the 1960s Congress provided money to the states for various projects under Johnson's Great Society Programs. Nixon Converted most of those programs to "Block Grants" to the states to spend as they saw fit. These moneys permitted the states to all cut taxes but when the money ran out under Reagan they started to cry about Unfunded mandates, but NOT to end the Mandates (Which most States legislators wanted) but to get the Federal Government to pay for them. Thus changing how we select out Senators will have NO effect on such Mandates.

What Legislatures election of Senators will affect is that a popular Senator from a state where the party opposite to him is in power could NOT win re-election or even election. Given that the GOP has control of many state do to Gerrymandering, they could then use their strength in the State Legislature to make sure only GOP Senators are elected. Thus it a state that is 50-50 Democrat-Republican split but do to Gerrymandering the GOP controls the State Legislature the GOP will win even if the Democratic Candidate would win in a State-Wide Election. Any movement to go back to State Election of Senators is to deny Democrats the chance to win a State-Wide Office in a closely held state where the GOP controls the State through Gerrymandering.

[tn-guy]

16. A few outcomes I would predict

I would think that unfunded mandates on the states would dry up very quickly. A senator who supported them would likely find himself not sent back when his term was up.

A second likely outcome would be that the Senate would revert to Democratic control. I say this because Democrats historically tend to control more state legislatures than Republicans.

Lastly, I would think that Senators would tend to server their first term later in life and server for fewer terms. Senators elected by state legislatures would tend to be members of the state legislature that would be "promoted" to the Senate after many years serving in the state assembly.

[StefanX]

7. The negative would be that it would do away with voting.

The more direct the democracy, the better -- in my opinion.

Heck, with everyone so wired these days from internet to cell phone, I bet we could do away with all representatives and just vote on everything directly ourselves. That might solve a lot of problems.

[napi21]

8. I don't like the idea at all!

First of all, every State legislature is controlled by one of the 2 major parties. That means you would NEVER have a Dem Senator in a State with a Pub controlled State! Second, if you had a Senator like Santorum, a guy you might have voted for, but his actions in office convince you he has to GO. How do you get rid of him unless you managed to get the State legislature changed too?

I hope whoever is talking about this stays under their rock along with the idea!

[lazarus]

9. The big problem with this

is that Senators are the only people left whose election isn't affected by gerrymandering districts. The President and the Reps and the state legislators are all elected via gerrymandered districts. So the state legislature may not actually represent the will of the people as a whole the way a Senator would, presumably.

[yourout]

10. Horrible, Horrible Idea.

Places more and more power in fewer hands. If you think the polital process
has money influence problems now it would be 10 times as bad after this.

[Idioteque]

11. I don't think we should have a Senate...

In fact I don't think we should have a President.

That being said, we do have a Senate, so it ought to be as Democratic as possible.

[Orangepeel]

12. ugh.

A movement to take power away from the people. Just what we need. :eyes:

My state (FL) is so gerrymandered that the state legislature is not at all reflective of how the state population votes. I want more power, not less.

[eppur_se_muova]

14. This would leverage power in those states with one-party rule.

Terrible idea. If your friend wants to help change the way politicians are chosen, tell him to start working against election fraud.

This sounds as good an idea as the Electoral College... :eyes:

[rman]

15. Negative: less direct democracy,

It would be easier for enemies of democracy (such as corporatists, neocons and reli-fundies) to rig the system in their favor.
There's no positive to it.