Posted on 09/08/2020 3:37:45 PM PDT by maggief
Nope, I live in Texas so they would have zero influence on our senators should the 17th be repealed. I'm not sure you are grasping the concept. State legislators are local, fairly low level people who's seat is determined by a very small group of citizens from the district. In other words they basically report directly to the voters and they are the ones who choose the senators if the 17th is repealed. This is how the founders designed our republic to work and they put a high level of importance on the senate representing the states. Arguing against this is the same as saying the framers of our republic were wrong.
Sass_hole!!!!!!!!!!
Can’t believe I’m agreeing with him. But he’s right.
L
HEAR HEAR!!!
It's hard to say. They would pick more "Establishment" candidates, but in practice under the current system, the big donor groups tend to keep out mavericks and give us "Establishment" candidates.
The idea that state legislators would zealously guard state powers and prerogatives and give us senators who limit federal power doesn't fly. First, the federal government has the money and the states want it. Second, state legislators are more than willing to pass responsibility on to Washington DC. Third, our economy, politics and media are already national. State legislators are going to bow to the same influences as the public and their representatives already do.
1) I don’t think the IL legislature would have elected a junior member to the US Senate.
2) Ditto for the NY legislature and the perjurer’s wife.
3) The Marine Barracks is within marching distance of the Capitol.
He should still be primaried.
———-
Too late. Very weak (lazy) primary opponent did virtually nothing but still got about 25% of the vote. Looks like we’re stuck with him.
“...wouldn’t state legislatures pick farther left candidates?...”
Some would and some would send Republicans. I don’t know how many legislatures are Democratic in both houses. But the founders wanted the Senate to represent the states while the House represented the people, by state. By taking back the 17th, think of all the money that would not be spent to elect senators now. All of the big donors, the special interests, would be out. Our founders knew what they were doing. Let’s return to the the original.
Except that a state senator can be bought a lot more cheaply than a US senator.
"The Nebraska senator’s list of reforms also included abolishing standing committees, requiring senators to show up for debates, term limits, and requiring senators to live together in dorms when in Washington."
Repeal of the 17th has been, is, always will be a stupid idea.
Moving everyone out of DC, and building or remodeling 535 domiciles for the House and Senate, with the rest of the city reserved for embassies, monuments, museums, and hotels would be a good move.
I agree 100%. In order to corrupt the senior legislative body, one which can approve justices and treaties, an external force can focus on one candidate — often less than that, by working on a single population center.
It’s so common that it’s part of every race now — the metro areas wait until other precincts are in and remarkably find just the needed votes to push ‘their’ candidate over. Just one county official can fubar a whole state.
Previously, such an effort would require first turning the majority of a state’s legislature — seats which are much more highly subject to inquiry from the population they represent.
You are wicked, sir. Or ma’m. None of my bidness.
No. Not at all.
The 17th amendment is what I believe led the the left taking over our country. It got away from states rights.
They would be mad, but to a man they would simply nod and say, "yep, figures, saw it coming".
No, Sasse has it right. Right now Senators sell out their state and trade votes with Senators whose district is a thousand miles away. Better to have them beholden to their local governments. Even if they are liberal, they have less power if the 17th was repealed. Lobbyists would have a much more difficult time.
But they’re related—both 17 and 19 are prime numbers.
“Fine, let a Madigan of IL or the CA state legislature choose your Senator then.”
Hate to break it to you, but Madigan of Illinois (and his cronies) already choose those Senators - do you think total nincompoops like Durbin and (especially) Duckworth got where they are either on their accomplishments or their ‘intellectual ability’ (I use the term loosely)?
With the 17th amendment gone, we’d still get awful senators from Illinois, New York, California and the like - but we’d also get good people who could never get elected by pandering to the masses from the red states, which at least for now outnumber the blues.
Between video conferencing technology and fast air travel, I think it’s time for Senators and Representatives to live in their home States and Districts. No more living in the DC bubble away from the Riff-raff.
I like this guy!
Actually, repealing the 17th would only serve to eradicate every remaining Conservative in the body. It would be a race to see who could loot the treasury for their state more than the other guy.
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.