Replies

I would approact it a different way. I would never support the idea of a small group electing a senator. I like having a say. A vote as it were.

Instead, I would propose term term limits for senators. Two at most. And pension paid according to time served.

I would also propose that no senatorial campaign can accept money from foundations, companies and businesses not founded in and located in the senators state and no money allowed from people not living in the State. Period.

Any senator who moves into a job after leaving the senate that is attached to a company that contributed to his campaign would have to forgo the federal senate pension.

Nothing can be accepted from lobbyists, including lunches, dinners, vacations, services of any kind. The only time a senator would be permitted to entertain lobbyist would be IN HIS OFFICE and it would only be for a stated period of time for this kind of push each week. This would open a LOAD of time for the senators to actually take actual calls from folks in their states, would allow them actual time to read the damn bills, and would allow for a lot less corruption.

——————I would approact it a different way. I would never support the idea of a small group electing a senator. I like having a say. A vote as it were.-—————

This comment is ironic from someone with the username of “republic”.

The only point of the senate originally was to give the states a say; it was a part of the check and balance system.

You have a say. The US house of reps.

Most of the founders knew that democracy didn’t work, which is why senators were sent from the states.

-———————Instead, I would propose term term limits for senators. Two at most. And pension paid according to time served.

The unintended consequences of directly elected senators.

Here is the real key to the 17th amendment. The progressives wanted it, and they wanted it real bad.

They wanted it for specific reasons. I’m sure you realize what those reasons are, the question is, will you enumerate those reasons?