re: Why aren't these conservative geniuses talking about repealing the 17th?

quote:

---

Look at the electoral college from the 2016 election.

---

Oh I'd venture to guess 5thTiger isn't a fan of the electoral system either.

quote:

---

So there it is, you think it would help change the past. That is your argument.

Despite court rulings in the 19th century that make this obviously erroneous.

All while failing to articulate why you think it would be helpful today.

---

I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were retarded.

5th Tiger is absolutely right.

The people who get appointed would be the biggest arse kissers and schmoozers of their respective parties or, perhaps in some cases, "elder statesmen" getting one last gig in.

Again 5th Tiger nails it. No more Rand Paul. Tea Party? Forget it. Mike Lee of Utah who defeated GOP senator Bennet? Forget it.

You guys know that Ted Cruz was almost completely opposed by the Texas GOP, right? The GOP establishment wanted a "don't rock the boat" guy.

LINK

There are threads on this board every day about how there needs to be a third party about how the GOP sucks and then you would have this amendment repealed which would give tremendous powers to establishment politicians.

And please spare me the talk about how - in political theory - these Senators are supposed to be the voice of their states. In practice they will be the voices of the elites of their respective parties of their states. Welcome back cigar rooms and backroom deals. Okay you get to be Senator but have to promise to vote to end such-and-such (like term limits).

Let the people decide.

Don't you guys also realize how this would crash and burn in polling ad elections.

SPOT
Video - US Flag over farm. Sunrise. A school bus.

Deep voiced announcer - "America. Home of the brave and free and fair elections. But the Republicans want to take that away. Their latest proposal would have Senators not voted in by the people, but settled on in back room deals under murky conditions".

Deep voiced announcer (continues) - "The Democrats want to keep things the way they are. The Democrats want the people to decide who their representatives shall be."

"So let's decide. Who should elect our Senators. The back room political elites, or the people of our country?"

You really want that ad run against the GOP in 50 states?

Remember Obama lost 1000 seats of all kinds over his 8 years. Thanks for giving them all back.

Mike Huckabee called for it last week.

The 17th is half baked.

If you directly elect senators you might as well go to a unicameral legislature.

Thank you Shorty.

quote:

---

Thank you Shorty.

---

Frankly, I prefer the original pre-17th setup.

To be sure, your points regarding the fact that party could easily lock out guys like Cruz and Paul are possibly true.

Then again, it's not a given. The reason is simple.

You're doing the thing I point out that's wrong A LOT when people evaluate change. You're looking at repealing the 17th as "tomorrow looks just like today, only no 17th".

The reality is, the people of Kentucky voted in Paul. Hence, they like Paul.

TODAY, their vote for governor or state reps really has no bearing on the Senate so, it is a complete non issue in state elections.

It would be pretty naïve to assume that if the states chose their senators, WHOM they chose would remain a non-issue in state level elections.

quote:

---

The people who get appointed would be the biggest arse kissers and schmoozers of their respective parties or, perhaps in some cases, "elder statesmen" getting one last gig in.

---

It would shift politics back to the states and local districts instead of D.C. It's easier to elect a "radical" to be a state representative than it is for one to win a statewide election. That in turns means that people who wanted to buck the system would have an incentive to run for a state rep position helping keep the establishment from running roughshod over everyone else.

A much better argument against repealing the 17th is that would you really want corrupt legislators in states like Illinois directly choosing who represents their state in D.C. I don't think it's a particularly good argument but it's much better than your argument that repealing the 17th would result in only the establishment being in power.

quote:

---

Why in the world is this board so obsessed with not letting citizens vote for their own Senators directly? You all bitch about corruption 24/7, yet you advocate for one of the most corrupt systems of election. Is it because you think it will help you gain more Senators? Because if we did repeal the 17th, you know who would be gone? The Tea Party, Rand Paul, and all your other favorites. It would be the ultimate establishment picks. I seriously don't get it. You are advocating for something that goes completely against all the other things you like to advocate for. *Usually, no one ever responds to me, but somehow, this thread blossoms up again day after day.

---

Thank You. This is EXACTLY what my biggest concern is about a 17th repeal. The Gilded Age is a prime example of why we need the 17th ( or a compromise on popular election)

All the repeal will do is ENSURE that we only get establishment picks for either party.

Frankly, this is a pretty friggin good thread.

There are very solid arguments in here for why keeping the 17th makes sense.

I think each side has its problems and that repealing it absolutely would create results that conservatives such as myself probably wouldn't like.

Then again, it would also shift a LOT of power back to the states which, of course, would have the left shitting bricks.

It's not a panacea, that's for sure.