US Elections 2016

[Guard Dog]

What is the issue with the 17th Amendment?

The 17th Amendment for those you don’t know and don’t want to look it up, allows for the US Senators to be directly elected by the voters of each state by popular election. Prior to its ratification is in 1917(ish I don’t remember exactly) the US Senators were elected by the representatives of the State House of each state government.

My problem with it is that there a few issues, mainly unintentional, that has arisen because of it. First off the founders did not trust the voters with the task of electing Senators. The Representatives were already directly elected and they wanted the Senate to be the representative of the State governments and to be buffered from what Hamilton described at the “passions” and “general rowdiness” of the public. Personally I think that is a steaming pile of bull crap. The voters are educated and informed enough to make intelligent choices on who will serve in the Senate. My problems with it, and the reason I think it needs to be repealed are these:

• • Since Senators are elected by a statewide popular vote we have stepped away from a representative democracy and stepped towards a real democracy. This is problematic because entire regions of a state end up playing no role in the election of a Senator and provide the senator with no incentive to address their concerns. For example California is about 165,000 square miles (425k km2 for those of you who use the smart system) and is home to 40M people give or take. The Bay area and the LA/SD metro area alone can elect the senators from that state. In a state of 58 counties just 7 can elect a Senator all by themselves. That gives the folks north of the bay and east of the Sierra Madres, San Bernardino and Diablos ranges no voice in the Senate. Ben Franklin said it best “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch”. When the Senators were elected by state reps, who were themselves elected by the voters of their districts, there was a proper representation of all voters.
• • The supremacy clause of the Constitution allows the Federal government tremendous power over the state governments. Prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment the State government had a reciprocal power over the Federal government and there was a balance. Afterwards the State governments were cut out of the legislative process of the Congress altogether. Don’t forget the Senate has the responsibility of confirming judges who will have authority over the State Supreme Courts that are appointed and seated the State Governments. The result of this has been profound. Power reserved to the States by the Constitution has been regularly usurped by DC and mismanaged. The 10th Amendment has all but fallen by the wayside and the Commerce Clause has been twisted into something unrecognizable in the power it is used to grant a Federal Government that no longer has to answer to the States it damages. The states on the other hand have become almost subservient to the Federal government, practically begging for funding from monies the states themselves collect in taxes. This is all out of balance now.
• • Returning responsibility of electing Senators to the State government empowers the State and will hopefully re-engage the voter in State level elections. We are a Union of 50 sovereign states. The needs of Tennessee are best determined by the voters of Tennessee in the people they elect to the government of Tennessee. The government of Tennessee is far more responsive to the voters of Tennessee that a Congressman ever could be. If a US Senator owes his job to representing the best interests of his whole state not a single population center, fighting for the interest of the government of his home state the Senate will go back to being the body it was intended to be. For those who want to stop partisan bickering in the Senate, this would be an excellent first step.

[Amentep]

Thanks for the explanation, I honestly had never read anyone with an issue on the 17th Amendment before - not that that means anything, there's lots of things I've never read, but it did make me curious as to what the objection was.

[Oerwinde]

 

What is the issue with the 17th Amendment?

The 17th Amendment for those you don’t know and don’t want to look it up, allows for the US Senators to be directly elected by the voters of each state by popular election. Prior to its ratification is in 1917(ish I don’t remember exactly) the US Senators were elected by the representatives of the State House of each state government.

My problem with it is that there a few issues, mainly unintentional, that has arisen because of it. First off the founders did not trust the voters with the task of electing Senators. The Representatives were already directly elected and they wanted the Senate to be the representative of the State governments and to be buffered from what Hamilton described at the “passions” and “general rowdiness” of the public. Personally I think that is a steaming pile of bull crap. The voters are educated and informed enough to make intelligent choices on who will serve in the Senate. My problems with it, and the reason I think it needs to be repealed are these:

• • Since Senators are elected by a statewide popular vote we have stepped away from a representative democracy and stepped towards a real democracy. This is problematic because entire regions of a state end up playing no role in the election of a Senator and provide the senator with no incentive to address their concerns. For example California is about 165,000 square miles (425k km2 for those of you who use the smart system) and is home to 40M people give or take. The Bay area and the LA/SD metro area alone can elect the senators from that state. In a state of 58 counties just 7 can elect a Senator all by themselves. That gives the folks north of the bay and east of the Sierra Madres, San Bernardino and Diablos ranges no voice in the Senate. Ben Franklin said it best “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch”. When the Senators were elected by state reps, who were themselves elected by the voters of their districts, there was a proper representation of all voters.
• • The supremacy clause of the Constitution allows the Federal government tremendous power over the state governments. Prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment the State government had a reciprocal power over the Federal government and there was a balance. Afterwards the State governments were cut out of the legislative process of the Congress altogether. Don’t forget the Senate has the responsibility of confirming judges who will have authority over the State Supreme Courts that are appointed and seated the State Governments. The result of this has been profound. Power reserved to the States by the Constitution has been regularly usurped by DC and mismanaged. The 10th Amendment has all but fallen by the wayside and the Commerce Clause has been twisted into something unrecognizable in the power it is used to grant a Federal Government that no longer has to answer to the States it damages. The states on the other hand have become almost subservient to the Federal government, practically begging for funding from monies the states themselves collect in taxes. This is all out of balance now.
• • Returning responsibility of electing Senators to the State government empowers the State and will hopefully re-engage the voter in State level elections. We are a Union of 50 sovereign states. The needs of Tennessee are best determined by the voters of Tennessee in the people they elect to the government of Tennessee. The government of Tennessee is far more responsive to the voters of Tennessee that a Congressman ever could be. If a US Senator owes his job to representing the best interests of his whole state not a single population center, fighting for the interest of the government of his home state the Senate will go back to being the body it was intended to be. For those who want to stop partisan bickering in the Senate, this would be an excellent first step.

 

 

There is nothing there I disagree with. Why was the 17th ammendment passed?

Edited April 5, 2016 by Oerwinde

[Amentep]

There is nothing there I disagree with. Why was the 17th ammendment passed?

As I recall, the going theory against the existing system was that Senate positions could be bought/sold by negotiating with the people who ended up with a say in the election process.  That said while there were a few historically contested election, there wasn't really proof at the time of widespread corruption but I can certainly see where it might be easier to bribe a few key state legislators than it is to sway the popular election.

 

The other issue was electoral deadlocks in the state legislature that could prevent anyone being elected and the seat(s) remaining vacant which had been an issue, IIRC.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Amentep

[Guard Dog]

As Amentep pointed out it was adopted, like most amendments are, to solve a problem. Corruption, selling Senate seats, the very thing Illinois governor Rob Blagovich was recently impeached and shown the door for, was commonplace. Of course back then it was easy to get away with. The only media was the newspaper and they could be bought off or intimidated. Now days... not so much. Like I said, the problems that have arisen because of it were unintentional and perhaps unforeseeable. But with the free access to information and scrutiny of elected officials we have today this one can and should get fixed. 

[Amentep]

Does seem like in this day & age there should be a better way to do it - because I imagine almost every state of any significant size has the problem related to population dense areas vs more rural areas which may end up voiceless.

[ShadySands]

I'm curious now, how do you feel about our presidential election system?

[Guard Dog]

That is the exact same argument against abandoning the electoral college. And it is a good one. Without that the only states that will ever see a candidate or matter to a candidate will be New York, California, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida and Illinois. The rest will be ignored. And in those states only the urban areas would matter. Good deal for the Democrats. That's why they are the ones who want it gone. 

 

The only thing that holds a country together is the desire to stay together. How long would that last if 44 states are essentially left out of the voting process?

Edited April 5, 2016 by Guard Dog

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Does seem like in this day & age there should be a better way to do it - because I imagine almost every state of any significant size has the problem related to population dense areas vs more rural areas which may end up voiceless.

Wouldn't the counter argument be that you're increasing the power of rural voters compared to city dwellers? In theory, under the popular vote system wouldn't everyone's vote count the same and failure to secure the popular vote be representative of a failure to have the backing of the majority of the people?

[Guard Dog]

 

Does seem like in this day & age there should be a better way to do it - because I imagine almost every state of any significant size has the problem related to population dense areas vs more rural areas which may end up voiceless.

Wouldn't the counter argument be that you're increasing the power of rural voters compared to city dwellers? In theory, under the popular vote system wouldn't everyone's vote count the same and failure to secure the popular vote be representative of a failure to have the backing of the majority of the people?

 

It's of small consolation to the sheep that the election was fair when the wolves vote to have lamb-chops for lunch. The founders were acutely aware of the importance of avoiding the "tyranny of the majority".

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Does seem like in this day & age there should be a better way to do it - because I imagine almost every state of any significant size has the problem related to population dense areas vs more rural areas which may end up voiceless.

 

Wouldn't the counter argument be that you're increasing the power of rural voters compared to city dwellers? In theory, under the popular vote system wouldn't everyone's vote count the same and failure to secure the popular vote be representative of a failure to have the backing of the majority of the people?

It's of small consolation to the sheep that the election was fair when the wolves vote to have lamb-chops for lunch. The founders were acutely aware of the importance of avoiding the "tyranny of the majority".

But we're not talking about wolves voting to eat sheep, we're talking about the power of citizens over their supposedly representative government. I fail to see how removing power from people and handing it to the state is a good thing, or how tyranny of the minority is superior to tyranny of the majority.

[ShadySands]

Are you suggesting keeping the senate popular vote or also making president popular vote only?

 

I know my family in Oklahoma doesn't even bother voting for president

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Are you suggesting keeping the senate popular vote or also making president popular vote only?

 

I know my family in Oklahoma doesn't even bother voting for president

Neither.

[ShadySands]

My bad

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

My bad

No problem. I'd say those things would be an improvement over the current scheme, but far from ideal.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Under the current system we should just let Florida and Ohio vote, everyone else is pretty much a foregone conclusion.

[Calax]

 

To be fair GD. The process to amend the constitution is incredibly slow and requires a REDICULOUS amount of effort on the part of the people. Not saying it can't be done, but it's designed so that it can't be changed on a whim like Californias state constitution. At the same time the document was not envisioned at a time when you could go from Nepal to London to Vegas in one day on a (very fast) aircraft.

 

Words and meanings change in 200 years. Our debate about the idea of a "militia" being totally different in the modern era to the one that the Constitution was drafted in (where Militias made up a vast majority of the defense forces of the region, vs a professional army) is just one example of how this can, and has, changed. And yes, we can amend the document to adjust it to suit modern times, we are living in a world where the NRA spends Billions to convince people like you and Vas that background checks mean "THey're coming for your gunz!" We can't have a proper educated discussion about this due to the interference of these specific groups who will convince a minority (but enough) people of the most ludicrous things to prevent any changes from being made.

 

I will say a part of me finds it hilarious that we hold up a document that was written entirely by an Aristocracy FOR an aristocracy as being "the greatest thing of all time". (Do you seriously think a dock worker in Boston cared two whits that the Black folk he was unloading from that ship counted for 3/5ths of a person politically to the man they were being purchased by?)

OK, lets try this then. For the sake of discussion lets say you and I represent different groups of delegates. Using the current Constitution with all 27 amendments as a model (as in editing not re-writing lock stock and barrel) lets see if you and I can come to any agreement on a new "revised" Constitution.

 

I'll go first:

• Omit clause one of the 2nd Amendment. The new amendment reads "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
• Repeal the 17th Amendment
• Add the following line to the end of the 5th Amendment: "Private Property shall never be appropriated for private use or other purposes except the general use and benefit of the public"
• Edit section 8 clause 18 of Article I to read: "The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Said powers are limited only to those specifically assigned in article I.

 

Can you define for me "General use and benefit of the public"? Does that include Yosemite? Disneyland? 

 

I mean having something like a factory being put in place, or a freeway system for the benefit of the general public would fall under that even if the people who own that land feel infringed. It may not be a direct public benefit, but the argument could be made that the business coming to town and providing a service or jobs that are direly needed in the area would outweigh some guy in a shack who happens to own the best place for [item].

 

Already you're creating interpretations of the constitution that will clash in court and be forced to have interpretation.

[Rostere]

That is the exact same argument against abandoning the electoral college. And it is a good one. Without that the only states that will ever see a candidate or matter to a candidate will be New York, California, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida and Illinois. The rest will be ignored. And in those states only the urban areas would matter. Good deal for the Democrats. That's why they are the ones who want it gone. 

 

The only thing that holds a country together is the desire to stay together. How long would that last if 44 states are essentially left out of the voting process?

 

They wouldn't be left out of the voting process. They would be given an amount of influence equal to their population, which is the least unfair way of representation anyone have come up with so far.

 

But the entire way of electing president through the electoral college is pretty retarded for other reasons. The fact that electors are won through winner-takes-all elections means that you disenfranchise a huge amount of voters, create the problem of pandering to "swing" states, and effectively hand the election to that party which has successfully gamed the system by having their voters in geographically favourable locations. It would be passable 200 years ago but today it is a disgrace.

 

Since Senators are elected by a statewide popular vote we have stepped away from a representative democracy and stepped towards a real democracy. This is problematic because entire regions of a state end up playing no role in the election of a Senator and provide the senator with no incentive to address their concerns. For example California is about 165,000 square miles (425k km2 for those of you who use the smart system) and is home to 40M people give or take. The Bay area and the LA/SD metro area alone can elect the senators from that state. In a state of 58 counties just 7 can elect a Senator all by themselves. That gives the folks north of the bay and east of the Sierra Madres, San Bernardino and Diablos ranges no voice in the Senate. Ben Franklin said it best “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch”. When the Senators were elected by state reps, who were themselves elected by the voters of their districts, there was a proper representation of all voters.

Great idea about making the votes of people who live in sparsely populated areas worth more than other people's votes! They are clearly a minority which need to have more say in order to ensure fairness, or else they will be eaten by the wolves. I like your idea about making the votes of geographical minorities worth more. But here are some other minority groups whose votes should be worth more than than others:

• Black people
• Jews
• Sikhs
• Redheads
• People with disabilities

Right? Don't you see, “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch”. So we need to make the votes of the sheep worth more! Everybody should be able to register which minorities they belong to, and then their votes can be scaled accordingly. So for example, the vote of a black redhead disabled homosexual transsexual Jew should probably be worth the same as at least a hundred white heterosexual Christians.

 

Don't you see that you have just picked a completely and utterly arbitrary minority group who you like to designate as "sheep", while others are "wolves"? You are no better than the crazy far-left types who say that black people's votes should be worth more, or whatever. The only difference between you is that you have different favourite minorities. You could even draw the argument even further, and say that your own vote should be worth more, because you are afraid of being eaten by the wolves. If all people were like you, complaining that some groups of people should have more powerful votes than others, democracy could never work.

 

The truth is that you need a basic law or constitution which contains the rights of people and the limitations of governments of different levels, and from there let one person equal one vote, which no shenanigans or "gamey" systems to disenfranchise arbitrary groups of voters.

 

People who live in sparsely populated areas don't play "no role in the election of a Senator". People in these areas play exactly the same role as people in other areas. Which is indisputably fair.

 

The supremacy clause of the Constitution allows the Federal government tremendous power over the state governments. Prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment the State government had a reciprocal power over the Federal government and there was a balance. Afterwards the State governments were cut out of the legislative process of the Congress altogether. Don’t forget the Senate has the responsibility of confirming judges who will have authority over the State Supreme Courts that are appointed and seated the State Governments. The result of this has been profound. Power reserved to the States by the Constitution has been regularly usurped by DC and mismanaged. The 10th Amendment has all but fallen by the wayside and the Commerce Clause has been twisted into something unrecognizable in the power it is used to grant a Federal Government that no longer has to answer to the States it damages. The states on the other hand have become almost subservient to the Federal government, practically begging for funding from monies the states themselves collect in taxes. This is all out of balance now.

Let us assume that all the problems you state are indeed there. Why would making state governments elect the senators make then serve their state better? Why would making senators subservient to state governments rather than the people make things better?

 

Seriously, having the state governments elect senators would only enable more rampant party insiderism, corruption and cronyism.

 

Suppose that the guy the state government would elect is the same as the one the people would elect, then it would make no difference. The only difference between the two systems is that state government could potentially elect people who would be wildly unpopular among the public.

 

You are really just suffering from the "grass is greener on the other side" syndrome. It's no coincidence the EC is the most corrupt, non-transparent and dysfunctional part of the EU. That's because they are not responsible to the public in any way. Trust me, you do not want what you describe.

 

Returning responsibility of electing Senators to the State government empowers the State and will hopefully re-engage the voter in State level elections. We are a Union of 50 sovereign states. The needs of Tennessee are best determined by the voters of Tennessee in the people they elect to the government of Tennessee. The government of Tennessee is far more responsive to the voters of Tennessee that a Congressman ever could be. If a US Senator owes his job to representing the best interests of his whole state not a single population center, fighting for the interest of the government of his home state the Senate will go back to being the body it was intended to be. For those who want to stop partisan bickering in the Senate, this would be an excellent first step.

No, it would not empower the state. The state would have the same power, the only difference would be that the state governments could hypothetically elect people who are hated among the public. That would only lead to the opposite of what you want.

 

Why would the government of Tennessee be more responsive to voters than a congressman from Tennessee if they are elected on the same basis? I suspect your argument for that being the case has to do with the government of Tennessee being elected in some other way than proportional "one person, one vote". Then this just boils down to something I've already responded to above.

[Zoraptor]

Looks like it's Cruz winning by about 20% and Bernie by about 8% in Wisconsin. Probably not quite enough of a win for Sanders, but enough of a loss for Trump that it's unlikely he'll get a majority of delegates prior to the convention.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

the vote of a black redhead disabled homosexual transsexual Jew should probably be worth the same as at least a hundred white heterosexual Christians.

Biggest laugh of the thread.

[Malcador]

Trump must be tweeting a fury.

[Bartimaeus]

Bernie up to a 11% lead now with about 55% of the precincts counted.

[Bartimaeus]

Oh, also, saw this on the Guardian primary livetracker:

 

 

[Calax]

Oh, also, saw this on the Guardian primary livetracker:

 

 

That picture and your avatar... remind me of the scene from the movie where they poked fun at "An inconvenient Truth"

[BruceVC]

Okay so Cruz and Sanders won Wisconsin

 

Interesting result, I am more excited now about NY....that's going to be very exciting