Republican Senate Candidate Says Voters Shouldn’t Be Allowed To Elect Their Senators (VIDEO)

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Another Republican candidate that has been pushing to repeal the 17th amendment, claiming that state's legislatures should determine a state's senators, as opposed to being elected by the state's voters.

This guy really makes a poor case for the repeal of the 17th Amendment (of which I would support). Stating it would remove the State's voters from electing senators, isn't quite truthful.

Originally it was left to individual states to determine how they elected their Federal Senators. Some states held popular elections, some had the State Legislature elect the senators. It was because of political infighting and vacancies that the 17th Amendment made headway.

He is right about one aspect though, is that pure popular elections makes having a bicameral House redundant; since the House of Representatives is the legislative body of the People, the Senate was supposed to be representative of the States. Now, with the 17th Amendment, both Houses are just representative of a quasi-democracy legislative branch with no accountability or checks and balances to law and the purse-string.

Akin claimed that directly electing senators violates state’s rights.

His claim is half-right, but the 17th Amendment took that "right" from the states and placed it into the hands of the majority.

Akin says that the only way to make state’s rights stronger is to take the election of senators out of the hands of the people, and allow state legislatures to hand pick them.

He is right, except for calling it to remove it from the hands of the People. Handing the selection process for senators back into the hands of the States and allowing individual states to determine how said senators are elected would be okay.

reply to post by Openeye


Maybe you should ask yourself where, in that dim history over 400 years ago, did the throne or the state get their money? Just because the organizations and powers behind the thrones weren’t called corporations doesn’t mean they didn’t operate just like one. And it also doesn’t mean the kings didn’t bow to the demands of those who provided operating capital when they got deep enough into debt to them.

But okay, so who among the powerful of today has succeeded and what did they succeed at? And why on earth would offenders need to flee? You don’t see them fleeing now, do you? They’re laughing right in your face. You just don’t know who “they” are, and they wouldn’t care if you did because they have “the law” on their side. Wrist slaps that amount to a minute percentage of an offending corporation’s profit when they’re caught in a criminal offense is considered a business expense. Nobody goes to jail ~ well maybe an underling or two will fall on their swords. But as you say, it never works out quite like that for the small businessman. Why is that?

Progress. Like we’ve progressed since the 1950’s, which even you admitted were easier to prosper during than the present day?

As for indigenous wars, when a people’s land and livelihood is overtly threatened and they are displaced by outside pressures, they often turn on one another, especially when they’re set up to do exactly that. So it was with the North American tribes who were deliberately turned against one another by being caught up in a French and British fight, and so it will be with us when outsiders invade, which actually has already happened (and no, I don’t mean Mexicans). Perhaps you can’t see that, either, so instead you turn your frustration on others who have already been displaced and who are fighting to regain what they lost. See how that works?

Talking about how well we’re doing, I just saw a report this morning that put the United States food insecurity status just above Romania’s. Perhaps you don’t know any Americans who go to sleep with an empty belly but trust me, there are plenty of them out there. And the US infant mortality rate is higher even than Cuba’s, as well as many other “third world” countries. Tell me, what good is an education when the students are buried alive by debt and there are no jobs? I could go on, but there's no point in it. Yep, we’re doing just fine!

There will never BE world peace because some leaders prefer being war profiteers to honest negotiators. And because some people lap up their propaganda like mother’s milk, then burp and go back to sleep while the wars for profit continue.

The EPA, FDA, CIA and all the other alphabet soup agencies are already owned lock, stock and barrel by the very people you despise the most ~ corporate conglomerates. Reform is a pipe dream because nobody has the testicular fortitude or backing to fight the godawful machine. It is the political insiders who cry war at the drop of a hat, which they will happily drop for their corporate masters and believe me, they aren't nationalists, they're about as far from that as its possible to get. So lets build an even bigger machine.

I’m not going to waste anymore time debating this, we've gone way off topic. Don’t worry, be happy.

reply to post by frazzle

I’m not going to waste anymore time debating this, we've gone way off topic. Don’t worry, be happy.

Sure thing, thanks for the debate. Don't be so pessimistic...were in bad shape, but it has been worse.

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by frazzle

 

but its bigger than that, anything beyond the 13th amendment needs to go into the shredder if we're going to ever get back State's rights.

Well that's going a little far, I don't know about you but I think women's suffrage and due process are good things.

Why should the "people" not be able to vote for their Representative in the senate?

edit on 30-5-2012 by Openeye because: (no reason given)

Due process is covered by the 5th Amendment. And it's highly unlikely (read: won't happen ever) women will suddenly be unable to vote because the 19th Amendment no longer exists.

I'm of two minds on this one. It was born from the Progressive movement of late 19th century, when there was a big push for more direct democracy. But there's really not any extra benefit to directly voting for a state Senator. It might even be more beneficial for the state legislature to do it since the Senators don't represent the interests of the people of their state directly, as that's what the Representatives are for.

I don't think it's as dire as all that.

/TOA