Repealing the 17th Amendment.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
I don't buy into the stupid people theory. Even if so, if the masses vote for it who am I to say otherwise.

Our whole system of Dem Vs Rep, electoral college, etc is outdated. Bring the polls online like banking. People can vote for single issues without all this BS thrown in.

Thing is it's those in control that don't want that. Most work the hardest to preserve themselves and their families and what's good for everyone else comes last.


The only problem with that is you would have to have some sort of sliding scale on whose vote counts more. Otherwise states with large amounts of voters would get more say than smaller states. Still on things like going to war I think it would be a great way to do it. At least if 75% of the people vote for it they have no one to blame but themselves when it goes wrong.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
The problem is not that Senators are directly elected.

The problem is not that our representatives are corrupt.

The problem is not campaign contributions.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the problem is that congress has far exceeded its constitutional power. The problem is government. All of the above are merely symptoms of this problem.

If congress did not have the power to make or break business or entire industries based on a whim, companies wouldn't have any reason to spend tens of millions of lobbyists. If a single senator didn't have the power to influence the entire economy of the United States, no one would be paying million-dollar bribes for party appointments or endorsements for that power.
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
The problem is not that Senators are directly elected.

The problem is not that our representatives are corrupt.

The problem is not campaign contributions.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the problem is that congress has far exceeded its constitutional power. The problem is government. All of the above are merely symptoms of this problem.

If congress did not have the power to make or break business or entire industries based on a whim, companies wouldn't have any reason to spend tens of millions of lobbyists. If a single senator didn't have the power to influence the entire economy of the United States, no one would be paying million-dollar bribes for party appointments or endorsements for that power.

The 17th amendment is what took the brakes off them amassing this much power. The Senate was meant to represent the individual states, not individual citizens, thus acting as a check on too much power being centralized in the federal government.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
That's exactly what the 10th Amendment Center was saying. If the state elected senators voted for big government at the expense of states' rights, then the state legislatures would remove them in a heart beat.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
And lobbyists would lobby state legislatures who, as a general rule, have less strict anti-lobbying rules, to appoint corporate and/or union shills to the Senate. Yeah, that would really solve the lobbying problem.

This idea is counter-productive to its purpose, and therefore full of FAIL.

- wolf

Currently, the lobbyists need focus on only ONE person, that Senator.

To suggest that it would be as easy for them (lobbyists) to instead have to lobby the entire state legislature hardly makes sense. Not only would it be almost impossible, it would also be a zillion times more public. make secret promises to one person? Yeah, you have a good chance to keep that private, but to a big chunck of a state legislature? Good luck with that.

I also think it would make it much harder for outside interests lobbying for something that benefits another state.

Having Senators chosen by state legilatures make the whole lobby process so unwieldy as to render it practically useless.

And if it did anything to break the cycle of incumbancy, well that would be a good thing.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
It would be easier to make campaign contributions illegal from anyone but private citizens.
That alone would stop a lot of the crap that is going on.

That wouoldn't stop 'bundling'.

So, you could still have someone walking around Goldman Sachs soliciting individual checks from each exec/employee etc.

Fern
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Currently, the lobbyists need focus on only ONE person, that Senator.

To suggest that it would be as easy for them (lobbyists) to instead have to lobby the entire state legislature hardly makes sense. Not only would it be almost impossible, it would also be a zillion times more public. make secret promises to one person? Yeah, you have a good chance to keep that private, but to a big chunck of a state legislature? Good luck with that.

I also think it would make it much harder for outside interests lobbying for something that benefits another state.

Having Senators chosen by state legilatures make the whole lobby process so unwieldy as to render it practically useless.

And if it did anything to break the cycle of incumbancy, well that would be a good thing.

Fern

I don't get that lobbyists only have to lobby one senator to get what they want right now. Explain how that works. Perhaps they will often focus on one, and have that person extend his influence to gather the votes. The same can happen on the state level.

States in general have less strict anti-lobbying rules than does the federal government. Same with campaign financing laws.

Since state legislatures are if anything more buyable than the U.S. Congress, I just don't see this as an improvement. Sorry.

- wolf
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
I don't get that lobbyists only have to lobby one senator to get what they want right now. Explain how that works. Perhaps they will often focus on one, and have that person extend his influence to gather the votes. The same can happen on the state level.

States in general have less strict anti-lobbying rules than does the federal government. Same with campaign financing laws.

Since state legislatures are if anything more buyable than the U.S. Congress, I just don't see this as an improvement. Sorry.

- wolf

I hope I understand what Fern means, but I think what he refers to is that the company only has to buy the senator himself. If the state elects him, they need to buy the senator, and at least enough of the state legislature to keep him in power.

Each of them would be cheaper than a senator is today, but in total, I would predict it to be harder to succesfully lobby to control the senator and all the state legislators controling him.
 
Dec 10, 2005
23,984
6,786
136
I can't even trust my state to pass a decent budget. I wouldn't trust my legislature to appoint senators.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,277
125
106
I propose we repeal the 21 amendment.. because I hate the number 21... Wait, what? Can you repeal a repeal?
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,326
10,230
136
It would be easier to make campaign contributions illegal from anyone but private citizens.
That alone would stop a lot of the crap that is going on.

I don't think it would be right to discriminate against the wealthy, but to balance things out, there needs to be some mechanism that facilitates many individual contributorsto be able to participate in a non-partisan (the mechanism) way.

Not sure how to do it. But, recent campaigns, Obama's as an example, were quite successful in getting contributions via the internet.

It's sad that people apparently mistrust the government so much that there's such a resistance to public financing of campaigns. I guess that's the reason, although I'm sure there is some ideological reason to be against the concept.

I'm sure I will be informed.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,967
19
81
I don't have a problem with funding...they need it and with any money can come abuse. It's a double-edged sword.

What I don't agree with is our system needs to stay in place otherwise lobbyists would have too hard a time pushing issues.

We should never set up a system like that. If someone wants their word heard, like in the past they have to pound sand. Hit up the old folks homes, universities, large corporations....this one-on-one stuff is just a method to coerce things and make it easier to 'bribe'. Sadly I think 90% of what we get today is because someone is getting a kickback on it.

There should be no reason today not to put everything online and allow someone to vote on it and on one single issue only. There should be no reason one of those registered voters cannot make their own statement for vote.

The way the system is designed sadly kills the popular vote from every truly succeeding.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,326
10,230
136
I don't have a problem with funding...they need it and with any money can come abuse. It's a double-edged sword.

What I don't agree with is our system needs to stay in place otherwise lobbyists would have too hard a time pushing issues.

We should never set up a system like that. If someone wants their word heard, like in the past they have to pound sand. Hit up the old folks homes, universities, large corporations....this one-on-one stuff is just a method to coerce things and make it easier to 'bribe'. Sadly I think 90% of what we get today is because someone is getting a kickback on it.

There should be no reason today not to put everything online and allow someone to vote on it and on one single issue only. There should be no reason one of those registered voters cannot make their own statement for vote.

The way the system is designed sadly kills the popular vote from every truly succeeding.

Sounds like what they are doing in Switzerland now.

I don't think American's as a whole, sad to say, are educated enough, homgenized enough, mature enough, for direct democracy to work here. Just look at how the Proposition system works in California. All it takes is a simple majority to vote for all the goodies yet it takes 60 or 66% (i forget) to pay for it. (That's one reason their economy is so F'd).
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
So having Senators chosen by other politicians would be less corrupt than having them chosen by the people?

The senates role is not to push the interest of "the people" rather the interests of the state.
That is why we have this thing called the house of representatives.