Abolish the 17th Amendment

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by Bluesguy, Sep 10, 2020.

?

Shoult we repeal the 17th Amendment and have the State Legislature's appoint their state's Senators?

  1. Yes

    50.0%
  2. No

    50.0%
  1. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not saying we should abandon the electoral college. Back in the first presidential elections, many states gave electors proportional to the percent of the population won. These states stopped doing this because they realized that this reduced their impact on their election, and there was a race to the bottom where now all states just dump all their votes on the guy who won 50.0001%. The constitution should have required a proportional electoral college to prevent this from happening. So if a state has 9 electors, and a candidate wins 66% of the vote, he gets 6 electors. And the 33% who voted for the other guy gets represented by those 3 electors. This is fair to those people who live in states that aren't swing states, and candidates won't focus only exclusively on swing states while ignoring the rest of the country.
     
  2. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's no reason you can't do that. But the issue is that the state decides that.
    And any dispute rests in the hands of the individual state government.

    The Constitution does have a proportional electoral college in the sense of states with larger population getting more electoral votes.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2020
    Resistance101 and Ddyad like this.
  3. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,247
    Likes Received:
    25,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The elected legislators would pick their best and brightest to represent their state.
    The Senate, for the most part, has been filled with mediocrities since the repeal of the 17th.
     
  4. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You make a good point, and I must admit, I never considered this idea before. I'll do more reading and then vote....

    If nothing else, it certainly can be said that everything else the Federal Government did in 1913 was miserably flawed, to my knowledge! After all, it was that year in which "Progressive" liberal Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, and his gang saddled us with a monstrous, central bank called the Federal Reserve System.

    So -- "1913" -- 'A year that will live in infamy...!"
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2020
    Hotdogr, Resistance101 and Ddyad like this.
  5. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But if its left to the states, then there will be a race to the bottom. For example if a state has 9 electors, and 6 goes to the GOP and 3 goes to the Democrats, then it only impacts the election by 3 electors. A rival democratic state with 5 electors can dump all of them on the democrat even if he won only 50.5% of the vote. This is why its important that the constitution ensure that the minority of voters in each state have their right to representation too, not just the majority, and not allow states to take that away.
     
  6. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What I'm afraid of is there will be a "race to the bottom" in the federal elections, if you have them.

    You haven't really solved the fundamental underlying issue, you've just moved it.

    Another possibility is for pairs of states to make treaties. For example, if there is a Democrat and Republican state who both have the same number of electoral college votes, they could both agree to pass laws giving proportional representation.
    Of course, there'd be no solid guarantees these states would follow their own laws and carry out election fraud.

    And therein you see the inherent issue, that there is no real way to get rid of, no matter who you give control of the election to.

    (note: I recognize that my "pairs of states" idea wouldn't completely solve the issue of "race to the bottom")
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2020
  7. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Could you delineate for us, then, WHY/HOW that will change things?
     
  8. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem with the treaty idea is that it takes just one state to not agree, and then the whole thing falls apart with a race to the bottom. And states are famous for doing their own thing and having rivalries. I live in Oregon and I hate that conservatives in Oregon see all their electors go to the democrats in every election for decades. I'd like conservatives to be represented in Oregon so they feel like their vote is making a difference and isn't being drowned out by the liberal big cities. Maybe Trump might even stop by in Oregon if he might gain an elector or two in Oregon.
     
  9. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They are represented, as far as Congressional districts. They get to send a member to the House of Representatives, even if they are in a Blue state.

    Now for President and Senate, yes, it's true they may not end up having a voice.
    But part of the positive of that is that they don't have to worry about election fraud. A solidly Blue state can't use election fraud to make minority Red votes not count, because they don't count in the first place. Could you imagine the disputed elections in each state if minority votes counted towards the national election?
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2020
    Ddyad likes this.
  10. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have a say in who chooses them and the STATES are represented in the Senate, sounds like a Federal Republic as we are supposed to be.
     
    Resistance101 and Ddyad like this.
  11. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's up to each individual state, there doesn't even have to be a vote in your state. And you'd have to codify what exactly is and what isn't gerrymandering, again an individual state matter.
     
    Resistance101 likes this.
  12. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It has TOO much power for it to also be a political body subject to the whims of the people, that's for the House. The Senate represents the State governments in the Federal Government and is suppose to balance the rashness of the House.

    We are the United STATES of America not the United PEOPLE of America.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2020
    Resistance101 likes this.
  13. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Constitution gives the Federal Government no power how the electors are chosen in each state it grants plenary power to each state legislature as to how they will be chosen. If your state legislature decided not to have an election and they would chosen you would have no standing to take it to court and the court force it to have an election.
     
  14. Conservative Democrat

    Conservative Democrat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    2,081
    Likes Received:
    926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Seventeenth Amendment was passed because rich men were bribing states legislatures to appoint lackeys to the Senate who would make them richer. I would like to end the Senate and the Electoral College. That would end the Republican Party.
     
  15. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem is that they aren't represented in presidential elections. States shouldn't have the right to strip the 49% of any representation in presidential elections. Why should I even vote if all the electors in my state is going to the democrats even if 49% vote republican? This also results in reduced voter enthusiasm in non-swing states, the voters in swing states being absolutely overwhelmed by presidential campaigns, and voters in non-swing states getting little attention by the candidates.

    Election fraud is an argument for a proportional electoral college. Since every elector goes to the winner, often states will be decided by very narrow margins. And these narrow margins can be impacted by voter fraud. Targeted election fraud can turn elections. If it is proportional, and a state had 20 electors, then getting 50% of the vote vs 49% won't make a difference in the number of electors, or will only change it by one in the worst case. If we have clear evidence that a state has cheated in the election, this is a much bigger issue that also impacts house elections and should result in immediate federal action.

    Not if we have a very clear constitutional framework in place. Simply take the percent of the vote won and round to the nearest number of electors. The Supreme Court can settle any of these disputes like they settled the 2000 election dispute.

    The reality is that conservatives are never getting the 17th Amendment abolished if they aren't willing to make a reasonable compromise on making the electoral college fair and banning gerrymandering which is fraud anyway.
     
  16. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The constitution needs to be amended obviously to fix this. I don't believe that states should be able to take representation away from political minorities and they should follow constitutional guidelines in an amendment. Our elections would work a lot better if people in non-states got attention from candidates and political minority votes actually mattered and were represented. Therefore, we should do it. If you guys can't do this kind of responsible compromise, then forget about democrats agreeing to abolish the 17th amendment.
     
  17. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you feel the need to end the Republican Party on the federal level.
    Under the original concept of federalism (as enumerated in the original Constitution), each state basically gets to decide which policies they want to enact.
    Supposing, hypothetically, the country went back to that, what would prevent you from getting everything you want through government at the state level?
    (with the exception of foreign policy of course)
     
  18. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    States are entities made up of people, you are being overly literal
     
  19. Conservative Democrat

    Conservative Democrat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    2,081
    Likes Received:
    926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I do not care about "the original concept of federalism (as enumerated in the original Constitution)." I want the U.S. government to become more democratic. If the United States had been more democratic on 2016 Trump would not be president.
     
  20. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL... I keep forgetting that. That plantation must be served by those you rule. Got it.
     
  21. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ...and so, as a "Conservative Democrat", you would have preferred to have had a wholly-corrupt, doctrinaire, wanna-be socialist creature like Hillary Clinton elected in 2016 instead...? Oh, SPARE ME...! :roflol:
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2020
  22. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    States are legal sovereignty's recognized in the Constitution. They are separate governments. You are being overly simplistic.
     
  23. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    31,455
    Likes Received:
    34,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then it would be better to limit Senators to one term - that way they are still elected officials but they won't be running for reelection.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2020
    yardmeat likes this.
  24. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is no "fix" because there is no "problem" to fix. The EC works exactly as designed and how our country is designed. And I have idea who you are talking about who lives in "non-states" and needs attention. If we had a national popular vote the all the people that live between the coast would not get that "attention".

    But back to the topic here which is not the elections for the Electors but returning to proper organization of the Federal Government and that being the Senate represents the States and their interest and is not a political body subject to the demands and whims of campaigning and raising money and kowtowing to political groups and donors.
     
  25. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It you read Sasse's proposal linked in the OP he limits them to 12 years for the State Legislature chosen Senators. But under your plan they would still have to run and campaign and raise money and be obliged to those who give them that money and support, ie they would still be political animals and not representing the State governments.
     

Share This Page