Why did the Framers have Senators chosen by state legislatures but not Pres electors?

[Patranus]

Can anyone guess why?

That more than likely would've stopped Lincoln from being elected.

OTOH, I'm sure Hamilton intended for someone like Lincoln to come along.

Because the Senate represents the interest of the state as an entity not the individuals of the state.

 

[Craig234]

What I find fascinating in this discussion is the naive belief that we were considered to be "Americans" any time before the last century.

Nationalism, even American nationalism, is very young.

If I understand you correctly, I very much disagree. You're saying people cared about being from a state, but did not think about being Americans?

You even seem to go so far as to say that 'nationalism' is 'young' for any country in the world. Funny, the ancient Greeks who wrote about it might disagree.

Craig234 mentions "the people" and "state governments" as though they were two discrete and diametrically opposed interests. In theory and for most of history our state governments were the level of government closest to us that had the widest influence.

No, I mention that they are sometimes opposed interests. State government and the people are not the same.

Sometimes, the state does act in the public interest; other times, it acts against the public interest, typically when serving the conflicting interest of the rich.

There's a lot of history of the state government and the people being different that led up to this change in the first place.

If our popular elections weren't so corrupted themselves with money from the rich, dominated by big funding for smothering ads developed by sophisticated marketing, this would be clearer, but whether that money is going to manipulate the public opinion with massive marketing, or the state government with lobbying and other spending, doesn't matter, except that the people have more of a chance to get people who represent them if they have the vote.

Your comment about state government might be right, but doesn't challenge one word in my post about the problems with state appointment of Senators.

Just because a state government was 'closer' to the people of the state doesn't mean that it did not act against their interest serving the rich.

 

[Patranus]

If our popular elections weren't so corrupted themselves with money from the rich, dominated by big funding for smothering ads developed by sophisticated marketing, this would be clearer, but whether that money is going to manipulate the public opinion with massive marketing, or the state government with lobbying and other spending, doesn't matter, except that the people have more of a chance to get people who represent them if they have the vote.

The funny thing is that if it wasn't for "progressive" government expansion at the federal level, the "rich" could throw all the money at representative they wanted to and it wouldn't make a difference.

Sadly, FDR had other plans for this country and the "progressive" expansion has put the federal government up for the highest bid.

 

[Craig234]

The funny thing is that if it wasn't for "progressive" government expansion at the federal level, the "rich" could throw all the money at representative they wanted to and it wouldn't make a difference.

Sadly, FDR had other plans for this country and the "progressive" expansion has put the federal government up for the highest bid.

Please, stop your idiocy.

Progressive government has nothing to do with corporate corrupt government.

That's the sort of idiocy only someone really deluded could wrongly have as an an opinion - you are a good reason 95%+ of what is said about liberals here is wrong or lies (and I can't remember the other 5%). But it's the sort of idiocy that explains why things get worse - vote against the one faction that wants to stop corporate government abuse.

Go back to the end of the 19th century - we had had your 'small government', your state-appointed federal Senators, your pro-business government and so on - and horrific labor situations, mass poverty among workers, and all kinds of problems we solved for good reason with the progressive movements that gave us the middle class prosperity that's the best thing that ever happened to the country, while it lasted until the people you support eroded it starting with Reagan.

Blaming a government that the rich have been able to buy, with their money not only in campaigns but in a radical right-wing propaganda indoctrination of many in the nation like yourself, on the progressives is like blaming slavery on the abolitionists or blaming forest fires on Smokey the Bear.

 

[Patranus]

Please, stop your idiocy.

Progressive government has nothing to do with corporate corrupt government.

That's the sort of idiocy only someone really deluded could wrongly have as an an opinion - you are a good reason 95%+ of what is said about liberals here is wrong or lies (and I can't remember the other 5%). But it's the sort of idiocy that explains why things get worse - vote against the one faction that wants to stop corporate government abuse.

Go back to the end of the 19th century - we had had your 'small government', your state-appointed federal Senators, your pro-business government and so on - and horrific labor situations, mass poverty among workers, and all kinds of problems we solved for good reason with the progressive movements that gave us the middle class prosperity that's the best thing that ever happened to the country, while it lasted until the people you support eroded it starting with Reagan.

Blaming a government that the rich have been able to buy, with their money not only in campaigns but in a radical right-wing propaganda indoctrination of many in the nation like yourself, on the progressives is like blaming slavery on the abolitionists or blaming forest fires on Smokey the Bear.

Again, you don't understand.

"progressive" perversion of the constitution stets up a market where the government picks winners and losers.

Now, because the government has this ability companies in these industries are able to influence government with money.

Now, if the constitution wasn't perverted by the "progressive", the federal government wouldn't be able to pick winners and losers and thus, any money spend on a congressperson would be worthless.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, you don't understand.

"progressive" perversion of the constitution stets up a market where the government picks winners and losers.

Now, because the government has this ability companies in these industries are able to influence government with money.

Now, if the constitution wasn't perverted by the "progressive", the federal government wouldn't be able to pick winners and losers and thus, any money spend on a congressperson would be worthless.

This is breathtakingly stupid. The only way where money spent on a congressman would be worthless is if Congress had no ability to regulate commerce. Since that's one of the enumerated powers in the Constitution, there is literally no time in all of US history where such a thing has been. (much less having our Constitution 'perverted') Maybe you can explain exactly when this magical time that existed where people and organizations with money didn't manipulate the government for their own gain.

Where do you guys get this stuff? It never ceases to amaze me how frequently you guys come in here and just shit your pants.

 

[Orsorum]

If I understand you correctly, I very much disagree. You're saying people cared about being from a state, but did not think about being Americans?

You even seem to go so far as to say that 'nationalism' is 'young' for any country in the world. Funny, the ancient Greeks who wrote about it might disagree.



No, I mention that they are sometimes opposed interests. State government and the people are not the same.

Sometimes, the state does act in the public interest; other times, it acts against the public interest, typically when serving the conflicting interest of the rich.

There's a lot of history of the state government and the people being different that led up to this change in the first place.

If our popular elections weren't so corrupted themselves with money from the rich, dominated by big funding for smothering ads developed by sophisticated marketing, this would be clearer, but whether that money is going to manipulate the public opinion with massive marketing, or the state government with lobbying and other spending, doesn't matter, except that the people have more of a chance to get people who represent them if they have the vote.

Your comment about state government might be right, but doesn't challenge one word in my post about the problems with state appointment of Senators.

Just because a state government was 'closer' to the people of the state doesn't mean that it did not act against their interest serving the rich.

That's nice, don't care.

 

[Craig234]

Again, you don't understand.

"progressive" perversion of the constitution stets up a market where the government picks winners and losers.

Now, because the government has this ability companies in these industries are able to influence government with money.

Now, if the constitution wasn't perverted by the "progressive", the federal government wouldn't be able to pick winners and losers and thus, any money spend on a congressperson would be worthless.

You're the one who doesn't understand.

First, 'pick winners and losers' is a propaganda phrase used to lie. You don't mention any specifics, for good reason, because it'd destroy your position.

Progressives providing some influence in the market *in the public interest* is one things. Corrupt advantages and benefits given for campaign contributions and other rewards is something *totally different*. Your simplistic propaganda is like saying a judge who sentences differently based on mitigating factors, and one who sentences differently based on bribes, are the same - both are choosing different sentences.

You also equate the government's corporate corruption - almost inevitable if the rich and corporations have too much concentrated wealth and power, as you want - with progressives, as if the alternative to progressive policies - which are all about preventing corruption by the rich and corporations - is some government that's not corrupt, when the opposite is the case. The alternative to progressive policies is MORE corruption by the rich and corporations - whether 'owning government' or crippling democracy and the power of the people to get anything done to limit their abuses by the power of the vote.

You don't understand that you are the enemy of the core of the United States, created to give the people the vote AGAINST concentrated power and wealth like the British.

That basic notion - recognizing the conflict between the people and the concentrated power and wealth and giving the people the vote for more power - is 'progressive'.

The right, without saying it so that they can get votes, basically opposes that idea. They've become the King George III party - re-elect the tyranny of the rich.

The ONLY way to curtail the government being a tyranny of the rich is to elect people who oppose that, and the only strong American faction who does are the progressives.

You did not listen to my request to stop the idiocy, but it stands. Try to learn a little something outside the lies and propaganda you have adopted.

That means understanding who's really for what - and why there's a strong backing of groups like you think are against tyranny, by forces of tyranny. You're being duped.

I've often said, quoting someone unknown, 'politicians have to LOOK good for the voters and DO good for the donors'. The people you support fit this well.

The only chance American really has at this time is the progressive movement, and unfortunately, corporate America and the rich are wiping America out.

The House made a great effort the last 2 years, but the Senate Republicans and a 'centrist' Obama basically blocked their bills, and that historic opportunity was wasted.

 

[Craig234]

That's nice, don't care.

Are you planning to post this in every thread, or was there something special about your not caring about this topic, that made you waste our time with your drivel?

 

[LegendKiller]

Again, you don't understand.

"progressive" perversion of the constitution stets up a market where the government picks winners and losers.

Now, because the government has this ability companies in these industries are able to influence government with money.

Now, if the constitution wasn't perverted by the "progressive", the federal government wouldn't be able to pick winners and losers and thus, any money spend on a congressperson would be worthless.

Sorry, but this is complete and utter bullshit.

The "market" is corrupted by those with capital using the capital to gain additional power through the purchasing of elected officials. There are many "governments" throughout this world, which are far less strong and have far more corruption, almost completely because the wheels can be greased so easily. A powerful central government prevents this, not causes it.

Only the corruption of actual wealth into the political process, through manipulation from the "free market" causes it.

However, Anarchist and his stupidity fails to acknowledge that the purely "free market" is a fucking joke. There is "invisible hand" to protect the people, the environment, the market, or the country, just the Fallacy of the Commons.

This is the reason why the Senate went from state election to popular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Clark

Clark raped Montana, polluted its waters, effectively enslaved the workers, threw propaganda through his "newspaper" and then bought himself a Senatorship with his wealth and influence in Montana, *AFTER* he was filthy rich.

But hey, fuck the EPA, fuck the workers, and fuck our Republic. As long as the holders of capital become wealthier, it's all good, right?

 

[Patranus]

Sorry, but this is complete and utter bullshit.

The "market" is corrupted by those with capital using the capital to gain additional power through the purchasing of elected officials. There are many "governments" throughout this world, which are far less strong and have far more corruption, almost completely because the wheels can be greased so easily. A powerful central government prevents this, not causes it.

Only the corruption of actual wealth into the political process, through manipulation from the "free market" causes it.

However, Anarchist and his stupidity fails to acknowledge that the purely "free market" is a fucking joke. There is "invisible hand" to protect the people, the environment, the market, or the country, just the Fallacy of the Commons.

This is the reason why the Senate went from state election to popular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Clark

Clark raped Montana, polluted its waters, effectively enslaved the workers, threw propaganda through his "newspaper" and then bought himself a Senatorship with his wealth and influence in Montana, *AFTER* he was filthy rich.

But hey, fuck the EPA, fuck the workers, and fuck our Republic. As long as the holders of capital become wealthier, it's all good, right?

If the elected official is bound by the confines of the constitution and cannot pick winners and losers in the market place it doesn't matter how much money those "evil" corporations throw at an issue BECAUSE THE CONGRESSMAN WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

 

[Orsorum]

Are you planning to post this in every thread, or was there something special about your not caring about this topic, that made you waste our time with your drivel?

The only time I suspect I'm wasting is yours, since no one else saw fit to comment on it. All the best, Craig.

 

[Farang]

Because the framers did not intend for the Senate to be a condensed House of Representatives.

The framers intended the Senate to be made up of men who commanded political power in their home states. Clever legislators and other men of influence who could build a coalition in their state's legislature to get elected. Such a body of men would be fit to create laws and advise and consent the President's actions.

They would also not be so exposed to public opinion. The House is the most exposed, the President next, and in the original system the Senate is well covered. A Senator would only fear his seat if his party lost a majority in his home state. As we see today, too much exposure to public opinion can make it difficult for government to solve problems which require unpopular solutions.

 

[Craig234]

Because the framers did not intend for the Senate to be a condensed House of Representatives.

The framers intended the Senate to be made up of men who commanded political power in their home states. Clever legislators and other men of influence who could build a coalition in their state's legislature to get elected. Such a body of men would be fit to create laws and advise and consent the President's actions.

They would also not be so exposed to public opinion. The House is the most exposed, the President next, and in the original system the Senate is well covered. A Senator would only fear his seat if his party lost a majority in his home state. As we see today, too much exposure to public opinion can make it difficult for government to solve problems which require unpopular solutions.

If the Senate has a flaw as originally designed that led to too much representation of a minority who were powerful, for corruption, then it's a bad idea even if it's the 'original intent' of the founding fathers - who, by the way, made their own compromises they hoped could later be improved.

I could list other flaws they 'intended', but that undermines the point I made, that if this is wrong, it's wrong, even if there weren't other examples.

The problem we actually have is not too much representation of the public in government, but too much representation of the most wealthy small minority.

Their having too much power is the larger issue of 'making it difficult for government to solve problems' - ones which require unpopular solutions with that minority.

For example, in the middle of our situation, is the better policy to increase our deficit by borrowing to keep the taxes on the most wealthy at horribly low rates that are leading to extreme increases in the concentration of wealth, causing great harm to our society, rather than either not borrowing that money or using it for the benefit of most Americans, who help the economy far more? And yet, that's an 'issue' because of that excess in power in our political system for this wealthy minority.

The cherry picking of examples where the public supports bad policy does not justify opposing power for the public - the basis of democracy, and endorsing the public not having power which is a far worse situation as an aristocratic class then becomes a tyranny. There are smaller and appropriate remedies for some of those problems, and even if unfixed they don't invite bringing disaster by creating more oligarchy.

Remember the saying about 'democracy being the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried'?

Your preference is one of those worse ones that was tried, and corrected to democracy. The rich would love for you to serve them by shifting power to them.

 

[LegendKiller]

If the elected official is bound by the confines of the constitution and cannot pick winners and losers in the market place it doesn't matter how much money those "evil" corporations throw at an issue BECAUSE THE CONGRESSMAN WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

It's nice to think that the world operates in a vacuum. However, it doesn't. Failure to recognize this is the downfall of free marketers.

 

[Zebo]

Read Federalist No. 10 by hat guy you think is an idiot, James Madison. He explains why it's necessary.

 

[werepossum]

You are dishonest enough to just make it up as you go and say it like you know it.

Unions were struggling for almost any power at the time, often physically attacked by the companies and the government for any strike, and PACs didn't exist at all.

You say they were 'free to take positions unpopular with big contributors', but offer nothing to support that they did so, when the record says otherwise.

In fact, the Senate was widely viewed as beholden to the rich and powerful, who arranged for them to get the seats, the opposite of what you claim.

One of the driving forces for reform was a series of articles, "Treason of the Senate".

Here is a brief excerpt:





This whole 'Senate cools off the hot tempered public while the House responds to the public's emotions' point goes back to the founding - but is bout the term lengths.

The Senate, elected every six years, isn't always running for re-election, while the House is always less than two years away from the next election.

The problem with the government has to do with the rich having too much influence, defeating the public interest, not with a runaway mob public.

You try to make your point by concocting a phony scenario about an amendment banning gay marriage - which there's no real danger of no matter how many Republican raise fund from bigots with it - while you ignore the corruption that actually exists that defeats your position, the corruption of the rich, as exemplified by the 100% of Republican Senators signing the 'no legislation until the top 2% get tax cut extensions' pledge - with some Democrats happy to go along.

The House passed the more responsible version, while the Senate killed it - and that has nothing to do with the Senate stopping 'a mob', but with the Senate protecting indefensible wealth distribution to the top - the idea is absurd of a mob, when the last 30 years concentration of wealth has skyrocketed for the rich, following in large part government policies to let that happen, as it has many times before.

The Senate's proper cooling is the sex year election - and not the election by politicians, who are far MORE vulnerable to lobbyists.

It's just perverse for you to argue that given the history of the corruption before popular election of Senators, that a return to that HELPS AVOID corruption.

It's wrong ideology, where you just make up a story, and post it as fact. Thank goodness we had the appointed Senators protecting us from those PACs before 1913!

Oh, and for a feel what the Union situation was like, that the Senate was 'protecting us' from, here are some union-related news headlines from the period:



That's enough to give a flavor of all those terrible union abuses we needed protection from an appointed Senate representing the rich.

You bitterly complain about money in elections, and you bitterly complain about state legislators selecting Senators. Every thread you post just makes it abundantly clear that you won't be satisfied until there is only one party, with only those candidates selected by the Party leadership, and every politician is singing from the same little red book. Man, the American Communist Party should be reporting your work here as donations in kind!