Posted on 04/16/2009 9:39:13 PM PDT by Lorianne
“National blocs couldn’t afford to fund all the state legislative offices”
They wouldn’t have to, just key races, and yes they could and would and do buy influence in state legislatures too.
“State campaigns will employ state people, the money will be gotten from people with state interests, and the attention will draw in real grass-roots people”
? That sounds like a strange fantasy. The more arcane it gets the more corrupt it would be, that’s how it works in reality. 150 people appointing an official as powerful as a US Senator is a terrible idea.
If I thought for a moment your theory would work, I'd support it. I don't, because it would make yet another important set of offices unaccountable to the electorate. There's a reason why many fought to give the people the right to choose Senators via the popular vote.
"I would say that my choice is to take power away from Washington and bring it closer to home, to the States, which should have been the dominant governments for the people."
But, again, you're not returning it to the people. You're giving the legislature more power and taking away an important choice FROM the people. I don't trust my state legislators with that power. My State Rep is a crook and my State Senator is a Justice Department-protected member who is unaccountable to anyone that doesn't share the same skin color (and doesn't do bubkas for those that happen to). The Congressmember is in a gerrymandered Democrat district where a Republican hasn't been elected since U.S. Grant's 2nd term in 1872. I'm already disenfranchised. Those 2 U.S. Senator votes are, along with the Presidency and Governorship, the ONLY races for which I have a say. I do not want that taken away from me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.