The shenanigans over replacing Obama in the Senate seems like a good reason to have elections for Senators. If Senators were appointed by the states Coakley would be one of the Mass. Senators. That seems like another good reason to keep things the same.
The real issue there is representational. In states dominated by one large population center…
Maryland with Baltimore and the DC suburbs
New York with NYC
Illinois with Chicago
All the representatives would eventually, or at least disproportionally, come from those areas and the rest of the state would be left to suck wind.
Well, most will anyway, right? I think the key is to elect statewide, but with proportional representation–say, each voter gets one vote & you take the top 5 candidates. But that would give more proportional representation to states with larger delegations.
>seem to be a group of Dopers that believe that individual congresspeople should vote for the best of the country - not necessarily their voters and another group that bemoan people not knowing basic civics
Saint Cad, these aren’t exclusive. I would be in both groups. I think it would be better for the US, by definition, if all its congresspeople voted for its best interests. I also understand my basic civics, understanding that this isn’t how it was originally conceived.
It’s like thinking the 2nd amendment guarantees people can have guns if they want, and thinking it shouldn’t.
I think the change in the senate is a natural offspring of the acceptance of America as a country, rather than a collection of states. Ask a person in 1790 what he was, and like as not you’d get a state as an answer, i.e. I’m Virginian, or Georgian. The states at that time were very separate. Ask a random person now, and like as not you’d get ‘I’m American’ as the answer.
This changing viewpoint is, imo, what resulted in the 17th amendment. States were less important because the people felt they were less important. There was, is is still today less and less need to identify with one of the states. Imo, it is inevitable that eventually the states representation in the federal government will one day come to an end, and government will operate solely for the entire american people, rather than be split as they are.
I believe that our representatives should vote according to the platform they were elected on. I would assume for a Congresscritter that platform would be a mix of local and national issues and that the candidate could convey to some degree their beliefs concerning what is best for consituents and the nation as a whole. This is the important thing for me- the electoral majority getting what they voted for. So long as this occurs the first part of the question can work itself out in a democratic fashion.
As for the rest of the question, I don’t see how Senators represent their states any less directly than they did prior to 1913. Rather they do so MORE directly since they are elected directly by the people who make up the state rather than indirectly by officials elected by the people. Personally I think people are competent to decide who should represent them.
This. And you might avoid constitutional issues simply by having the Senate pass a rule giving its consent to any bill it fails to vote down before the end of one of the three regular sessions. (Assuming it was passed by the House in time to give it due consideration.) Then the cloture rule would work against forces seeking to obstruct legislation. You could even return to the old 2/3 cloture requirement and have a situation where the Senate would rubberstamp House legislation unless there were a firestorm of opposition. The Senate would still have its power over judicial appointments, treaties, and consitutional amendments but would largely transfer the power and burden of legislating to the House.
Simple to do. But not easy. Oh no.
I question the theory. The creators of our constitution famously failed to anticipate political parties. The trend is that when one is out of power it cries about the accumulation of power in the central government (doing the wrong things) but continuing the trend when it is in power (doing the right things). This started with Jefferson and continues. I don’t see state governments holding back the tide when the political party that runs them has a chance to advance their national agenda.
Just my 2 cents.
Senators need to be more “big picture” people, while Reps need to be more “populist,” as it were. That keeps things reasonably balanced. I see no reason whatsoever for the Senate to be “more responsive to change.” That’s not what they are there for. They are designed as a retarding force to the popular will, and that is a good thing.
I also agree with the OP on Dianne Feinstein. I disagree with almost all of the politics, and will forever curse her name for taking away one of my favorite campsites, but she always professional, studied, and has the best interests of California and the country at heart. She doesn’t grandstand for the cameras like the others do.
In the interest of fighting ignorance: It’s constituEnts and constituEncy.
That was all. Carry on!
Before we get all teary-eyed about how senators in the good ol’ days of appointments we such great statesmen, take a look at how thoroughly corrupt they were. Even greats such as Daniel Webster were so thoroughly on the take that it makes Duke Cunningham look like a rank amateur.
Now, times certainly have changed, but the real lesson is that reversing the 17th Amendment would give political parties (especially state-level parties) a HUGE increase in power. Excepting those who advocate a change to multiparty systems, which is a very few people, I have a hard time seeing very many Americans at all who really want political parties to be more influential.
I don’t agree. The Seventeenth Amendment was part of the “direct democracy” movement of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Century, which also saw the advent of direct primaries, citizen initiatives, referendum, and recall. These reforms weren’t directed at centralizing power in Washington, but at making government at all levels more directly accountable to voters.
Of course, the Seventeenth Amendment might have had the effect of centralizing power, even though it wasn’t designed for that purpose. Some libertarians and federalists have argued that the post-1913 Senate was more likely to approve centralization, because Senators reprsented state citizens instead of state governments. More such centralization did in fact take place after 1913 than before. But it also took place in every other country in the world, and probably would have happened here anyway. Since we can’t rerun history without the Seventeenth Amendment, the argument must remain speculative.
I’m in favor of repealing the 17th. I’m also in favor of term limits for Senators and Reps.
but, they are the ones picking the State Legislatures so…