A “People’s House” or an oligarchy?

[JEQuidam]

...the Senate still has just two seats per state, so consolidated power is there for lobbying, special interest and etc.

 

So, it would seem that while we get rid of a large portion of the lobbying and special interest corruption game in the house of reps, it could increase the stakes of corruption in the Senate.

I believe that the 17th amendment should be repealed in conjunction with increasing our total number of congressional districts.

[doG]

The Senate can pass no legislation by itself so lobbyists get nowhere by lobbying only the one house of Congress.

[JEQuidam]

The Senate can pass no legislation by itself so lobbyists get nowhere by lobbying only the one house of Congress.

Agree, however, because of the Senator's massively sized districts, they still are dependent on the financial and political support of lobbyists and special interests. Repealling the 17th amendment (so that the state's legislatures can choose their Senators) would virtually eliminate that.

[iNow]

You and doG appear to be in agreement on that point, as evidenced back in post #22 of this thread.

[doG]

Yes, I'm VERY much in favor of repealing the 17th distortion....er..um....Amendment.

[ParanoiA]

Agree, however, because of the Senator's massively sized districts, they still are dependent on the financial and political support of lobbyists and special interests. Repealling the 17th amendment (so that the state's legislatures can choose their Senators) would virtually eliminate that.

 

I think I like that answer. Certainly would seem to be much cleaner than the way business is done today.

 

So what about the senatorial election battles within state legislators, like throughout the late 1800's? I don't know much history on the matter, other than it happened, so how do we avoid them? Or were they really all that bad to begin with?

[JEQuidam]

I think I like that answer. Certainly would seem to be much cleaner than the way business is done today.

 

So what about the senatorial election battles within state legislators, like throughout the late 1800's? I don't know much history on the matter, other than it happened, so how do we avoid them? Or were they really all that bad to begin with?

Like you, I've heard about them, but don't know much about them. But, my feeling is that's why we pay our state legislators the big bucks, to make decisions more difficult than determining the state's highway budget.

 

I don't see how moving the "election battle" out of the huge arena of millions of citizens, and into the smaller arena of the state legislature, would make them any worse than they already are. Certainly the candidates would not have to raise the millions and millions of dollars necessary to fund a mass marketing campaign to all the citizens.

 

In any case, if we had 6,000 congressional districts, that would provide the citizenry with all the representation we need. We can then return the Senators to the states' legislators.

[doG]

The original system ran into problems with changing state legislatures sending different Senators to D.C. forcing the Senate to work out who was a qualified candidate for various duties or committees, bribery and corruption in some states and others leaving the selection up to their people by referendum.

 

IMO it is the state's problem to worry about their representation. They are not getting the representation they were intended to have and they need to fix it, not we the people. They need to lobby to have the 17th repealed and they also need to be the one's to worry about the problems above and preventing them from happening again. In the process I do think it would be fair for the Senate to lay down some ground rules that constrain the states choices in the matter to help limit the problems that occurred before.

[JEQuidam]

IMO it is the state's problem to worry about their representation. They are not getting the representation they were intended to have and they need to fix it, not we the people. They need to lobby to have the 17th repealed and they also need to be the one's to worry about the problems above and preventing them from happening again. In the process I do think it would be fair for the Senate to lay down some ground rules that constrain the states choices in the matter to help limit the problems that occurred before.

The states' governments are controlled by the same two-party duopoly that controls the federal House; hence, the states' goverments will never do what you expect of them (i.e., fix it).

 

As I've argued previously on this thread, increasing our number of congressional districts to 6,000 will break the two-party stranglehold on our government, and then that would allow other necessary initiatives to proceed (such as repealing the 17th amendment).

[ParanoiA]

As I've argued previously on this thread, increasing our number of congressional districts to 6,000 will break the two-party stranglehold on our government, and then that would allow other necessary initiatives to proceed (such as repealing the 17th amendment).

 

Yeah, I certainly agree with doG's take on it being the state's responsibility to fix their representation issues, but I'm not sure "we the people" are out of line to repeal the 17th through our reps. It's certainly in our interests, particularly with 6,000 + reps. But then of course, we still have to make them fix the previous issues to make it work.

 

And I'd love to break up the parties. I know I don't say it much, but it's damn near the top of my favorite things I'd like to see happen in my lifetime.

[JEQuidam]

And I'd love to break up the parties. I know I don't say it much, but it's damn near the top of my favorite things I'd like to see happen in my lifetime.

...and I know of no other way to do that than by downsizing the congressional districts; that would make the mega-party obsolete. Better yet, with small districts, a very large number of Representatives would be independents (as many were back in the early 1800s).

 

I don't need my Rep to represent party interests; the Representative should represent the citizens of his/her district!

[doG]

Yeah, I certainly agree with doG's take on it being the state's responsibility to fix their representation issues, but I'm not sure "we the people" are out of line to repeal the 17th through our reps.

 

It would take a vote by our reps to pass an amendment in order to repeal the 17th. What I'm saying though is that it is the state's responsibility to initiate the action that addresses their representation. It is their responsibility to lobby for that change. Imagine how you'd feel if the states initiated an action to change the method of how your representatives are selected. They would be out of place. In short, I think it most proper that legislation to repeal the 17th should originate in the Senate instead of the House.

 

OTOH, I do believe it is in the people's best interests that the constituency of the Senate be returned to the States. It is after all, we the people, as citizens of our respective states, that are the States, the sovereign members of the union, the entities which are granted state's rights in the Constitution. It is the existence of this sovereignty that forms the foundation of our rights as state citizens, our community rights as opposed to our individual rights represented in the House. A foundation that allows us to select our local governments and laws that are tailored to our local populations. A sovereignty that joins us as one in our states in the eyes of the union, that we may speak together on matters of the union that effect us as one.

[ParanoiA]

It would take a vote by our reps to pass an amendment in order to repeal the 17th. What I'm saying though is that it is the state's responsibility to initiate the action that addresses their representation. It is their responsibility to lobby for that change. Imagine how you'd feel if the states initiated an action to change the method of how your representatives are selected. They would be out of place. In short, I think it most proper that legislation to repeal the 17th should originate in the Senate instead of the House.

 

Fair enough. So, perhaps "we the people", operating in the capacity as citizens of our sovereign states, should lobby our respective local governments to respect our community rights (recognizing our balance of individual rights in the House) and repeal the 17th through our Senators?

 

OTOH, I do believe it is in the people's best interests that the constituency of the Senate be returned to the States. It is after all, we the people, as citizens of our respective states, that are the States, the sovereign members of the union, the entities which are granted state's rights in the Constitution. It is the existence of this sovereignty that forms the foundation of our rights as state citizens, our community rights as opposed to our individual rights represented in the House. A foundation that allows us to select our local governments and laws that are tailored to our local populations. A sovereignty that joins us as one in our states in the eyes of the union, that we may speak together on matters of the union that effect us as one.

 

Beautifully put.

[JEQuidam]

So, perhaps "we the people", operating in the capacity as citizens of our sovereign states, should lobby our respective local governments to respect our community rights (recognizing our balance of individual rights in the House) and repeal the 17th through our Senators?

Good luck with that. Let us know how that works out.

 

As I earlier pointed out, the same two-party duopoly that controls the federal Reps controls the local Reps. The Reps primarily serve their respective parties with regard to maintaining the status quo. Real change (as opposed to the more comfortable rhetorical change) will not come about until we take back our Reps from the parties and the special interests.

[doG]

Fair enough. So, perhaps "we the people", operating in the capacity as citizens of our sovereign states, should lobby our respective local governments to respect our community rights (recognizing our balance of individual rights in the House) and repeal the 17th through our Senators?

 

I think our best first step would be to push for a change in the Electoral College that acknowledges the 14th Amendment. If the Presidential electors for each legislative district are given to the will of the people it will come at the expense of state's rights. This would be a popular motion, since many people don't understand the EC to begin with favor the popular vote, and should be the easiest change to get the masses to support.

 

This would open the door for the people, as federal citizens, to proclaim, "Hey, while you're at it we need to fix the people's representation too. We want more districts." By this time the states should be on the defensive and want a change that fixes their own representation

[JohnB]

It doesn't sound like you've made much effort to understand the EC or the reason it was chosen.

I just can't see the point in a popular vote if the voice of the people can be overridden by the EC.

 

There could be a "cultural" thing here too. Australia is a nation made up of several states. Would it be correct to say that the US is several states who joined to create a nation? From our perspective the State/Nation relationship is the same as the Shire(County)/State relationship. Would it be correct to say this is not true for US, that there is far more state independence?

 

JE, I expressed support for your idea don't forget. With the new (smaller) electorates, who draws the boundaries? Do you have an independent body that does this or does the Legistlature decide?

 

Re sarcasm, I was responding to your supersillious comment. If you wish to draw a line and go fresh from here on, I'm happy with that. No hard feelings. You see, there really are things I don't understand about Americans and how they think.

[doG]

I just can't see the point in a popular vote if the voice of the people can be overridden by the EC.

 

It's not the the popular vote is overridden by the EC or that it was intended that there would be a vote by the people at all for the Executive. The EC makes the selection of President a summary of 50 separate contests in the 50 separate states such that the states may chose the Executive of their union. It is directed that each state may chose its electors however its legislature choses. It just so happen that those legislatures have chosen to use suffrage by their people as the method.

[JEQuidam]

I think our best first step would be to push for a change in the Electoral College that acknowledges the 14th Amendment.

I don't disagree with your larger point, but I don't believe there should be an amendment that tells the the states exactly how they should implement the EC. That is a state-by-state matter. For example, I believe that the states should discontinue the winner-take-all convention (as Maine and Nebraska have already done), but that change should not be imposed on the states by a federal amendment.

 

I just can't see the point in a popular vote if the voice of the people can be overridden by the EC.

It helps if you understand that we (the people) elect these electors. They are prominent members of the community. You can be certain that if an Elector who was chosen for the McCain slate then voted for Obama (or vice versa) that elector would not want to return home after the convention. (Like the Aussies, we Yanks can be rather beligerent but, unlike the Aussies, we still got our guns.)

 

So why bother maintaining the EC? Well, as a practical matter, it would require a constitutional amendment to eliminate it. (I would oppose such an amendment.) The only compelling reason for eliminating the EC is the risk that the EC vote will not reflect the PV, which happened in the 2000 election (where the EC went to Bush but the PV went to Gore), and that happened even though all the electors voted as directed by their electorates! As was shown by two mathematicians, that result came about because we have too few congressional districts to ensure a predictable result. That analysis is provided on this page:

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/section_IX.htm#B (The "Neubauer-Zeitlin Analysis".)

 

I also favor the Electoral College because it would prevent, IMO, a situation where a nefarious candidate is voted into office by a plurality of the popular vote. For example, let's say we had Presidential candidates A, B, C and D and, further, assume that "D" expressed totalitarian views and appeared to be bent on undermining our liberties (but he promised to make the trains run on time). Normally, such a candidate would not garner significant popular support. However, two days before the election (in this hypothetical) a bomb is detonated in the Congress, killing many people; candidate "D" then announces that the bomb was the plot of foreign extremists and that he would bring law and order! Here is the popular vote result: A: 18%, B: 23%, C: 29% and D: 30%. So, even though 70% of the voters did NOT want D as the President, they would have him anyway if the popular vote prevailed. There is no doubt in my mind that the good people who comprise the Electoral College would prevent that situation, for the sake of the nation, by uniting behind an acceptable candidate (e.g., "C"). Their electorate would demand that of them.

 

There could be a "cultural" thing here too. Australia is a nation made up of several states. Would it be correct to say that the US is several states who joined to create a nation? From our perspective the State/Nation relationship is the same as the Shire(County)/State relationship. Would it be correct to say this is not true for US, that there is far more state independence?

Sadly, that has become true, but it was not supposed to be that way. Our states were, in effect, nations. Lost to memory is the fact that the word "Congress" was used to describe a meeting of nations. Our situation has devolved as the states have allowed their balls to be cut off so they have essentially become federal counties. Repealing the 17th Amendment would help reverse that.

 

With the new (smaller) electorates, who draws the boundaries?

There will need to be an implementation committee to figure all that out. Personally, I'm inclined to allow the districts to be drawn according to the local postal areas; i.e., combine the local carrier routes until they add to 50,000.

[doG]

I don't disagree with your larger point, but I don't believe there should be an amendment that tells the the states exactly how they should implement the EC. That is a state-by-state matter. For example, I believe that the states should discontinue the winner-take-all convention (as Maine and Nebraska have already done), but that change should not be imposed on the states by a federal amendment.

 

I think there should be an Amendment that changes the Electoral College. Right now it is strictly a vote by the states for the Executive. Its like the Senate getting the sole vote on a piece of legislation with no say from the House. It's time that the people, as individuals, should have a say that is separate from the one they are given as sovereign communities. It would end the potential for a winner take all system that exists today because of the state legislatures.

 

In this new Amendment the contest for President would no longer be 50 contests as it is now with contestants trying to win this state and that. On today's map it would be 485 contests, one for each state and one for each separate congressional district. There would still be a body of electors but the state legislatures would no longer control how the electors for the people vote, they would control only the manner by which their own electors vote. The electors for the people would be appointed in a manner as directed by the people of their district, by popular vote, by referendum, by any method they choose.

 

This isolates the will of the states from the will of the people and gives both a say in choosing the Executive. It grants a right to the people, as federal citizens, that is separate from their rights as state citizens. It effectively extends the 14th Amendment to cover Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment, making the Presidential contest one that gives the people a say in where their vote goes.

 

Note to mods: Feel free to break this post and others off into a separate thread on the Electoral College is this is drifting off topic too much.

[JohnB]

DoG, thanks for that. You don't have 1 national election for President, you have 50 state elections that are held on the same day. Now I understand.

Here is the popular vote result: A: 18%, B: 23%, C: 29% and D: 30%. So, even though 70% of the voters did NOT want D as the President, they would have him anyway if the popular vote prevailed.

That is a problem with "First past the Post", "Optional Preferential" might be worth looking at.

Sadly, that has become true, but it was not supposed to be that way. Our states were, in effect, nations.

There I think is the cultural difference, our states were always subsets of the nation. As in, they were colonies, but only became States with Federation.

Personally, I'm inclined to allow the districts to be drawn according to the local postal areas; i.e., combine the local carrier routes until they add to 50,000.

I like it, simple and neat. We use a body called "The Australian Electoral Commission" which does this on a Federal and State level. Probably wouldn't work for you as the various States would have to give up some Sovereignity and from what you've said, I doubt they would.

It helps if you understand that we (the people) elect these electors. They are prominent members of the community.

Gotcha, I was confusing "the States choose" ie the State.gov with "the States choose" meaning the electorate. Thanks.

(Like the Aussies, we Yanks can be rather beligerent but, unlike the Aussies, we still got our guns.)

Don't believe everything our .gov says either. You'd be surprised how many of us still have weapons. "Yes Mr Prime Minister, of course that's all the guns I have. Those mounds in the back yard? I've been doing a lot of gardening lately."