Amend 17th Amendment and let the States have 1st shot at picking the Senators

[JEDI]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It used to be the House were elected by the people to represent the people.
And the States picked the Senators to represent the respective State.

but a lot of States were lousy at picking one because the state legislators couldn't agree on who to pick.
so it was changed that Senators were elected by the people in 1918.

100 years later, I propose a hybrid system:
Every 6 years, States pick a Senator by election day in Nov. This person is nominated by the Governor + passed by legislative branches.

if they don't, then it goes to public election like it does now for a 4yr term. (they campaign for 2years.)
Thus Senators are still a 6yr cycle.

How does that sound?


edit:
What does this solve? The $$$ buying politicians.
if Senators are picked by the State govt , then maybe they're not as beholden to lobbyist $$$?

 

[sandorski]

What problem does it solve?

 

[Paratus]

There’s already to much consolidation of power in the Senate. Removing the choice of senators from the people is an awful idea.

 

[brycejones]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It used to be the House were elected by the people to represent the people.
And the States picked the Senators to represent the respective State.

but a lot of States were lousy at picking one because the state legislators couldn't agree on who to pick.
so it was changed that Senators were elected by the people in 1918.

100 years later, I propose a hybrid system:
Every 6 years, States pick a Senator by election day in Nov. This person is nominated by the Governor + passed by legislative branches.

if they don't, then it goes to public election like it does now for a 4yr term. (they campaign for 2years.)
Thus Senators are still a 6yr cycle.

How does that sound?

I will be succinct. Fuck no.

 

[brycejones]

There’s already to much consolidation of power in the Senate. Removing the choice of senators from the people is an awful idea.

Gerrymandered GOP controlled states might like this idea.

What the OP is completely missing is that his idea takes a statewide office and makes it vulnerable to the kind of gerrymandered bullshit we are already dealing with.

 

[K1052]

How about no.

 

[ElFenix]

Sounds corrupt, just like the original system was.

 

[Brainonska511]

Senators are already picked by the people of the state to represent their state. Why do you want to do an end-run around state-wide popular elections in favor of corrupt, gerrymandered state legislatures that at times do not reflect the will of the voters of those states?

 

[whm1974]

Sounds corrupt, just like the original system was.

Very, as I can recall when I read about it in High School Civics class.

 

[Indus]

Hmm you'd have corrupt senators for life, loyal only to their governor who is loyal to his donors.

This doesn't solve any problems, but it makes them worse.

 

[bbhaag]

Gerrymandered GOP controlled states might like this idea.

What the OP is completely missing is that his idea takes a statewide office and makes it vulnerable to the kind of gerrymandered bullshit we are already dealing with.

I know that a lot of members here will most likely disagree with this sentiment but gerrymandering is not just a GOP controlled state problem. If you need evidence just look at the great state of Illinois which has been democratically controlled for decades.

Now to get back to the OP's question. This is a terrible idea. Just google Rod Blagojevich trying to sell a senate seat to the highest bidder. I believe his most famous quotes are "Unless I get something real good for Senate seat, shit, I'll just fuck myself, you know what I'm saying. It's a fucking valuable thing you just don't give it away for nothing.".

 

[whm1974]

I know that a lot of members here will most likely disagree with this sentiment but gerrymandering is not just a GOP controlled state problem. If you need evidence just look at the great state of Illinois which has been democratically controlled for decades, has massive amounts of debt, and four out of the last seven governors have gone to prison on corruption charges.

Now to get back to the OP's question. This is a terrible idea. Just google Rod Blagojevich trying to sell a senate seat to the highest bidder. I believe his most famous quotes are "Unless I get something real good for Senate seat, shit, I'll just fuck myself, you know what I'm saying. It's a fucking valuable thing you just don't give it away for nothing.".

How many years did he get? Sadly I don't recall.

 

[bbhaag]

I think he is still in prison and if I remember right he got 14 years for his pay to play bullshit politics.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I know that a lot of members here will most likely disagree with this sentiment but gerrymandering is not just a GOP controlled state problem. If you need evidence just look at the great state of Illinois which has been democratically controlled for decades.

Now to get back to the OP's question. This is a terrible idea. Just google Rod Blagojevich trying to sell a senate seat to the highest bidder. I believe his most famous quotes are "Unless I get something real good for Senate seat, shit, I'll just fuck myself, you know what I'm saying. It's a fucking valuable thing you just don't give it away for nothing.".

I think you're grossly believing bullshit conservatives and their bullshit claims. I don't see many liberal people on here acting like liberals don't also do bad shit (including some of the same stuff that Republicans do) and want them to face consequences for said actions. I doubt you'll find many defenders of the corruption of Illinois politicians on here either.

Yeah, I have no idea what the OP is even trying to accomplish with this idea.

 

[bbhaag]

I think you're grossly believing bullshit conservatives and their bullshit claims. I don't see many liberal people on here acting like liberals don't also do bad shit (including some of the same stuff that Republicans do) and want them to face consequences for said actions. I doubt you'll find many defenders of the corruption of Illinois politicians on here either.

Yeah, I have no idea what the OP is even trying to accomplish with this idea.

No I am not.

 

[whm1974]

I think you're grossly believing bullshit conservatives and their bullshit claims. I don't see many liberal people on here acting like liberals don't also do bad shit (including some of the same stuff that Republicans do) and want them to face consequences for said actions. I doubt you'll find many defenders of the corruption of Illinois politicians on here either.

Yeah, I have no idea what the OP is even trying to accomplish with this idea.

Indeed as I've poking fun at Chicago and Crook County for years.

 

[Atreus21]

It would certainly make people more involved in local politics.

 

[JEDIYoda]

JEDI left the room...………….

 

[JEDI]

I know that a lot of members here will most likely disagree with this sentiment but gerrymandering is not just a GOP controlled state problem. If you need evidence just look at the great state of Illinois which has been democratically controlled for decades.

Now to get back to the OP's question. This is a terrible idea. Just google Rod Blagojevich trying to sell a senate seat to the highest bidder. I believe his most famous quotes are "Unless I get something real good for Senate seat, shit, I'll just fuck myself, you know what I'm saying. It's a fucking valuable thing you just don't give it away for nothing.".

unlike Blagojevich where the governor picks AND approve, my idea needs that state's legislature to approve

 

[nickqt]

Be a whole lot better just abolishing the Senate altogether.

 

[JEDI]

Be a whole lot better just abolishing the Senate altogether.

well, the House and Senate each have their own unique powers.

also, in the House, the Majority party can just ignore the Minority and pass bills at they see fit.
in the Senate, the Majority needs 60% to do that

 

[JEDIYoda]

well, the House and Senate each have their own unique powers.

also, in the House, the Majority party can just ignore the Minority and pass bills at they see fit.
in the Senate, the Majority needs 60% to do that

You are way off base -- Sure the house can pass bills as they see fit!1 They can pass millions of bills as they see fit!!
But the Senate has to akso pass those same bills in order for them to be sent to the president!

Your crying that the house can pass bills as they see fit...well keep crying. -- hahahaaaa
Then House could have given Trump his border wall when the Republican had the majority in both the House and Senate!

I don`t understand your crying like a Republican baby -- suck it up!! You had your chance~ awww JEDI`s feeling hurt...o boo hoo!!

 

[darkswordsman17]

No I am not.

Then why would you even put your first statement? Sorry but it absolutely does not align with people on here like at all. And the only people who say shit like that are the conservatives on here who just constantly spew bullshit and claim such things with literally nothing to support them. So either you're shoveling that shit or you're buying it from others who are to even posit that kind of crap.

 

[dawp]

It would certainly make people more involved in local politics.

no, it wouldn't, they aren't involved now and this will provide little, if any, motivation to increase the turnout.

 

[dawp]

You are way off base -- Sure the house can pass bills as they see fit!1 They can pass millions of bills as they see fit!!
But the Senate has to akso pass those same bills in order for them to be sent to the president!

Your crying that the house can pass bills as they see fit...well keep crying. -- hahahaaaa
Then House could have given Trump his border wall when the Republican had the majority in both the House and Senate!

I don`t understand your crying like a Republican baby -- suck it up!! You had your chance~ awww JEDI`s feeling hurt...o boo hoo!!

I think you missed his point
yes the majority in the house can pass bill with a simple majority while the senate need 60% of senators, currently 60 votes, to advance any bill.

he was not saying that the house could pass laws without the senate.

you might want to lay off whatever you're on for a bit.