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

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but people on this board would rather have the legislation select our Senators rather than vote for them directly? Why would anyone think that's a good idea?

I have seen where one of the reasons proposed when the 17th amendment was passed was that State legislative elections had become dominated by the business of picking senators, with the policy stances and qualifications of state legislative candidates sometimes ignored by voters who were more interested in the indirect Senate election.

Also, I think that, if the 17th were repealed, it would be possible for several states to band together and try to have a disproportionate effect on how the overall Senate voted on certain issues. That could be good or bad, depending on the issue. But would it be a good thing overall?

quote:

---

We're focused on the 19th.

---

I love you

quote:

---

Your post says nothing.

How did Congress operate prior to 1912?

And why or why not is it a good idea to repeal the 17th?

---

There actually were Some good points on this in the thread.

I support repeal but there were solid counterpoints

It's certainly not the panacea it's portrayed as

quote:

---

Funny how liberals refuse to answer this.

---

I think they just don't care. To your average liberal, "states" are a quaint and dated concept that should be abolished. All power should reside in Washington DC, and all elections should be based on a popular vote.

quote:

---

I support repeal but there were solid counterpoints

It's certainly not the panacea it's portrayed as

---

I don't think I would favor repeal, but it's a tough choice.

I see the "election" of the legislators at the state level getting to be a major deal, with potential US Senate candidates creating a "ticket" of state legislators one should vote for so he would become Senator. An extra layer of zoo-ism on state elections. Not the best way to select a state legislature.

And if the state legislators elect Senators, I see those Senators being strongly influences by their governors, which is not a bad thing by itself, but I see the possibility of states banding together in voting blocks attempting to influence the overall vote in the Senate on certain issues.

The hard thing is trying to guess how it would end up working, with so many variables, before it is passed.

I guess that's what makes me leaning against, because it ain't like prohibition -- once it is changed, I don't think it will ever go back.

quote:

---

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

---

Using that word flippantly on here is disrespectful to those who are dealing with that condition one way or the other in their personal lives.

You are showing your own ignorance by doing it.

Go back and check on Senatorial politics prior to the 17th Amendment. The most corrupt political institution in US history was the US Senate when machine bosses purchased Senate seats for their supporters/enablers.

Given how corrupt our state legislatures are now, and how dominated by special interests most state legislators are now, repealing the 17th Amendment would enable more corruption than any of us has seen in recent decades. US Senate seats would go to the highest bidder.

Actually, there is some talk, including by Mike Huckabee, in the last few days, see [link=(here in townhall)]https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2017/07/31/huckabee-its-time-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment-n2362216[/link]

And the reason the left would fight this to their dying days is that they know restoring power to the states would end their domination in WaDC. That doesn't mean we don't have to do this, just that it won't be easy. And the longer we wait, the worse it gets. LINK