The Seventeenth Amendment, ratified on April 8, 1913, reads as follows:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

More and more I believe it's time to heave this amendment.

The Seventeenth Amendment, ratified on April 8, 1913, reads as follows:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

More and more I believe it's time to heave this amendment.


reason?

No, I think the people should elect senators.

Before the 17th amendment senators were appointed by state legislatures, with predictable results.  The theory was, as expressed my James Madison before political parties emerged, that the senate would be a check on the transitory fades that might inflame the people, as expressed the the House.  What rot!!! 

More and more I believe it's time to heave this amendment.

You think the senate shouldn't be elected?  Having a non-elected second chamber ain't all it's cracked up to be, you know: we've got one over here...

Before the 17th amendment senators were appointed by state legislatures, with predictable results.  The theory was, as expressed my James Madison before political parties emerged, that the senate would be a check on the transitory fades that might inflame the people, as expressed the the House.  What rot!!! 


Its the same line of thought that justified/justifies the electoral college.

reason?


A couple of very simple reasons:

1. America is a republic, not a mob rule democracy.  The founders had it right, a body that the people elect to represent them, and a body that represents the states.
2. A chamber where the body represents the states and not the people might slow down if not fully stop this massive expansion of federal power and hopefully expand states' rights.

I know this is never going to happen.  We saw it in 2004 when senator Zell Miller filed a resolution to repeal the 17th amendment, it got no co-sponsers and rotted away in some second rate committee.

You think the senate shouldn't be elected?

The senate would be elected by the state legislatures, which are elected by the people.

You think the senate shouldn't be elected?  Having a non-elected second chamber ain't all it's cracked up to be, you know: we've got one over here...


Same in Canada. Luckily, almost all the powers rest in the hands of the House of Commons. I imagine the British House of Lords is equally as useless as the Canadian Senate, no?

I do not believe the 17th ammendement should be repealed and I think it's about the most anti-democratic suggestion I've seen in a while.

A couple of very simple reasons:

1. America is a republic, not a mob rule democracy.  The founders had an right, a body that the people elect to represent them, and a body that represents the states.
2. A chamber where the body represents the states and not the people might slow down if not fully stop this massive expansion of federal power and hopefully expand states' rights.

I know none of this never going to happen.  We saw it in 2004 when senator Zell Miller filed a resolution to repeal the 17th amendment, it got no co-sponsers and rotted away in some second rate committee.

The senate would be elected by the state legislatures, which are elected by the people.


No, taking away a right is regressive, and a step towards the slippery slope.  State legislatures wouldn't elect the Senators, lobbyists would.

Nope.

We have both proportional representation (that would be the House) and then equal representation (that would be the Senate).  I don't see why this needs to be changed over 200 years later.

Nope.

We have both proportional representation (that would be the House) and then equal representation (that would be the Senate).  I don't see why this needs to be changed over 200 years later.


The Seventeenth Amendment doesn't change the way the legislature is structured, only in how the officials are elected. 

I do not agree that it should be repealed though.  But to qualify GWB's statements, the USA is not a democracy, it is a republic, and a republic is run through indirect democratic representation.  As such you will see a huge amount of checks and balances, i.e. the President can nominate officials to the courts and to his cabinet, but the Congress must approve these nominees, ergo the will of the people is channeled through multiple "middlemen", so to speak. 

The problem with repealing the 17th is that it won't make much difference, in my opinion, in the decentralization of federal power and the overall corruption of political officials, and you'll end up pissing off a lot of people because you've taken away some of their power as voters as well.  At least with direct voting, you have immediate results.  With state legislatures doing the voting, you may have delays because of partisan bickering and filibustering etc.

Its the same line of thought that justified/justifies the electoral college.

That's different.  In the Senate, every state has an equal voice because they all have two senators each.  With the Presidential electoral college, if you do it based solely on population, not every state will have an equal say.  A state like, say, North Dakota or Vermont would be completely overwhelmed by a state like Texas or New York and thus be completely negligible in the grand scheme of the election.  With the electoral process, the election is not decided solely by the two coasts and the midwest because a conglomerate of the dinky states and mountain states can offset California.  Without the college, candidates would be like "Screw you Iowa" and campaign solely in California, New York, Texas and Florida. 

Why do states matter?  Its people that matter. One vote per person, period.  Thats how it should be.

That's different.  In the Senate, every state has an equal voice because they all have two senators each.  With the Presidential electoral college, if you do it based solely on population, not every state will have an equal say.  A state like, say, North Dakota or Vermont would be completely overwhelmed by a state like Texas or New York and thus be completely negligible in the grand scheme of the election.  With the electoral process, the election is not decided solely by the two coasts and the midwest because a conglomerate of the dinky states and mountain states can offset California.  Without the college, candidates would be like "Screw you Iowa" and campaign solely in California, New York, Texas and Florida. 



The electoral college question is one that I didn't want to start, but I will step in to agree.  The electoral college speaks directly to the tyranny of the majority in terms of larger states controlling all aspects of the nation.

Why do states matter?  Its people that matter. One vote per person, period.  Thats how it should be.


Because 30 million hippies in CA outweigh 50000 Joe Q Farmers in Wyoming, that's why states matter.  You cannot allow California and New York to decide policy for the rest of the country.

If the electoral college is supposed to even out the difference between big states and small ones wouldn't it make more sense that all states have the same amount of votes?  As of now, California has 55 and Vermont has 3. I don't see how that evens out the playing field.




Cat

If the electoral college is supposed to even out the difference between big states and small ones wouldn't it make more sense that all states have the same amount of votes?  As of now, California has 55 and Vermont has 3. I don't see how that evens out the playing field.




Cat


Because if you get enough Dakotas, Carolinas and New Mexicos strung together (among others), you can offset California.  That's why even though Kerry won California, New York and Illinois, he still lost because Bush won 31 states to Kerry's 19 + DC.  It directly affects campaign strategy, keeps more people involved in the voting process, and indirectly gives an incentive for states to want people to move there.  As of now there is an efflux of people from CA into neighboring states like Nevada and Arizona, so there may come a point where Arizona may outweigh California in the college.

As of now, California has 55 and Vermont has 3. I don't see how that evens out the playing field.


California population: 33,871,648 (55)
Vermont population: 608,827 (3)
Wyoming population: 493,782 (3)

That means California has about 615,847 people per electoral vote.  While Vermont has 202,942 people per electoral vote and Wyoming has 164,594 people per electoral vote.

The electoral college helps smaller states gain extra representation that they wouldn't have otherwise in direct elections.

Because 30 million hippies in CA outweigh 50000 Joe Q Farmers in Wyoming, that's why states matter.  You cannot allow California and New York to decide policy for the rest of the country.


Why should Joe Q Farmer set the policy for the country?  I don't think slow people should be allowed to use a set of steak knives, let alone run the country. :D ;D

The senate should be elected by the state legislatures. The state legislators should be elected by the highest corporate bidder for each seat. Yuh right!
::)

Of course not, silly, the 17th Amendment should be left alone!

The question is moot anyway. The fascist-occupied Republican party has already figured out better ways to keep the voice of the people from being heard. Hint: Tom DeLay, Katharine Harris, Ed Blackwell.
::)

Why should Joe Q Farmer set the policy for the country?  I don't think slow people should be allowed to use a set of steak knives, let alone run the country. :D ;D


...and you think a bunch of has-been freedom fighters should? 

California population: 33,871,648 (55)
Vermont population: 608,827 (3)
Wyoming population: 493,782 (3)

That means California has about 615,847 people per electoral vote.  While Vermont has 202,942 people per electoral vote and Wyoming has 164,594 people per electoral vote.

The electoral college helps smaller states gain extra representation that they wouldn't have otherwise in direct elections.

There are good arguments for and against keeping the electoral college. However, neither electoral nor direct voting will succeed if the people in chage of the districting and elections are a bunch of dirty crooks, ala Tom DeLay, Katharine Harris, and Ed Blackwell! THAT, my friend is the real problem. I am afraid you will never admit to the dirty dealings unless a Democrat president gets elected using exactly the same criminal tactics the Bushies did in 2000 and 2004.

the USA is not a democracy, it is a republic, and a republic is run through indirect democratic representation.

This is sort of a grey area actually. Whether the US is unquestionably a "republic" proper is debatable, and this was something heavily discussed in my last government class and emphasised by the textbook (entitled America's Democratic Republic, Greenberg, Edward et al., Penguin Academics), the main thesis of the book being the differences between a true democracy and a true republic, and how the US displays key characteristics of both. The founders of this country implemented a system that would both benefit the will of the contemporary majority (democracy), while at the same time giving voice and protection to the minority (benefits of a republic). I think we can all agree that, overall, the American system of "democracy" the way it was intended does a fairly good job doing both of these things (as any competent form government by/of/for the people ought to). Thus, I agree with the thesis of my previous government textbook, that the US should rightfully be referred to as a "Democratic Republic."

Whew, that was a mouthful.

This is sort of a grey area actually. Whether the US is unquestionably a "republic" proper is debatable, and this was something heavily discussed in my last government class and emphasised by the textbook (entitled America's Democratic Republic, Greenberg, Edward et al., Penguin Academics), the main thesis of the book being the differences between a true democracy and a true republic, and how the US displays key characteristics of both. The founders of this country implemented a system that would both benefit the will of the contemporary majority (democracy), while at the same time giving voice and protection to the minority (benefits of a republic). I think we can all agree that, overall, the American system of "democracy" the way it was intended does a fairly good job doing both of these things (as any competent form government by/of/for the people ought to). Thus, I agree with the thesis of my previous government textbook, that the US should rightfully be referred to as a "Democratic Republic."

Whew, that was a mouthful.


The way I learned it in government is that the USA is a representative democracy, which sounds like a republic, but like you said, there are some differences.  Of course you have to be careful with the term "Democratic Republic" as well *cough cough* North Korea *cough*  :D

...and you think a bunch of has-been freedom fighters should? 


Has been my ass.

Has been my ass.


I guess they are asses.

I guess they are asses.


::) Straights.

and Ed Blackwell


Do you mean J. Kenneth Blackwell, the current Ohio secretary of state who is now running for governor?

www.kenblackwell.com/