I agree with the others that we need not be bound by the original intents of the Framers, when it is perfectly clear that the Constitution was lawfully changed for the direct election of Senators. With that change, there’s no need to say, “Harumpf! This isn’t what the Framers wanted - therefore the Senate is obsolete!”
The wishes of the Framers has been rendered moot in a perfectly lawful way.
If you want to say that you just don’t like the Senate, that’s fair. But I disagree. So there.
The framers original intent should be respected. Slavery should be legal, only landowners should be allowed to vote. And all that freedom of speech and right to arm bears crap should be ignored because those things only exist because the Constitution was held hostage by the states who wouldn’t ratify without that whole Bill of Rights that wasn’t intended to be in the Constitution in the first place. Just look where we’ve ended up by ignoring original intent.
Oh no, I’m not off on an original intent bent, I’m just saying let’s finish the job that the 17th Amendment started. Let’s have all directly elected representatives and call it that.
This current state looks like we got halfway there then quit. I know it’s just one guy’s opinion. It just doesn’t feel right, that’s all.
I don’t see what’s wrong. I do see non-proportional representation in the Senate as an issue, but that’s a different matter altogether. The House is proportionally represented by population at granular level, I think the grains should be smaller, but it’s not too bad right now. In the Senate the states are represented as equals, and with the current system the state is represented by the direct choice of it’s citizens. Taking that choice away and returning to a state as a greater entity that may not represent it’s citizens doesn’t seem like an improvement to me.
I’d hold out on that, GulfTiger, until I got some sort of real proportional representation or neutral-districting provision. As it stands today, in the multi-district states the Congressional representation is too vulnerable to gerrymandering, and ending up with a delegation overrepresenting one party or even dominated by the party that got *fewer *total votes. Which is also the issue with the state legislature. While right now, the federal Senate seats are at-large posts, represent the will of the plurality or majority of the whole-state voters.
There are three key differences between the House and the Senate. The House represents individual districts while the Senate represents states, the Senate is smaller, and Senate terms are longer. There’s no reason we couldn’t keep the latter two even if we eliminated the first, and thus keep a bicameral legislature relevant.
But it’s moot anyway, because we can’t get rid of the Senate, short of abolishing the entire Constitution and starting over from scratch. We can’t even do it via amendment: It’s the one part of the Constitution that’s explicitly not subject to the amendment process. Though I suppose that we could, in principle, pass an amendment to vastly decrease the power of the Senate, similar to Britain’s House of Lords.
Yes, it would be good to have a portion of Congress where the people of Wyoming had equal representation with the people of California. But unfortunately, what we have instead is one house where Wyoming has twice the representation of California, and one where they have 66 times the representation.
Campaigning is Georgia … in 1789 … would have required an inordinate amount of horseback riding … I can see why the Founding Fathers maybe thought having the Georgia legislature electing their Senators was a good idea … once the automobile came along we changed this to a direct vote of the people … let’s use all this fancy-pants new technology to our advantage … wireless radios are really cool …
That was the original design. The Senate for the states, the House for the people. If the 17th hadn’t screwed that up, we would probably not have crap like the states being saddled with unfunded mandates by the fed and other things. The 17th needs to go.
We the People are saddling State governments with unfunded mandates? … I must be dense because I don’t see the connection to the 17th Amendment …
Chronos wrote: “But it’s moot anyway, because we can’t get rid of the Senate, short of abolishing the entire Constitution and starting over from scratch. We can’t even do it via amendment: It’s the one part of the Constitution that’s explicitly not subject to the amendment process. Though I suppose that we could, in principle, pass an amendment to vastly decrease the power of the Senate, similar to Britain’s House of Lords.”
Well, you could, in theory at least, pass one amendment getting rid of the section that makes the Senate “unamendable”, then pass a second doing whatever with it that you will.
It’s fascinating how so many small-government types want to make the most historically tyrannical level of government even more powerful.
Okay, but you asked how it was possible to gerrymander a senate seat. The answer is it’s only possible if you repeal the 17th.
Actually, I asked Damuri Ajashi if he/she could explain it. Currently, it’s impossible to gerrymander a U.S. Senator’s seat.
However, this seems like an opportune time for the Democrat Party to lead the way, undo their gerrymandered districts, and provide a good example for other parties to follow. Down with gerrymandering! Up with the Republic!
What’s the Democrat Party?
Maybe your Cheeto-in-Chief will support an end to gerrymandered presidential elections…?
Well, according to doorhinge, it’s the party that controlled the most state legislatures after the 2010 census and redrew our current congressional district lines. So I guess it doorhinge must be talking about the Republican party.
Maybe this might help:
That links to the page of the Democratic National Committee, and references the Democratic Party. I’m looking for the *Democrat *Party. Confusing, I know!
As the page clearly shows the Democratic party is made up of Democrats. “DEMOCRATS”.org. Not “Democratic”.org.
Did you think the Democratic party was made up of Republicans?
Don’t you even want to give the Democrats a chance of doing the right thing by encouraging that they undo their gerrymandered districts? You know a, lead by example, kind of thing.