KY would bypass Electoral College under House plan
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
Somebody working to represent a government's (the State) interest in a larger government may vote differently than the "masses". And Senator's were beholden to the government of the state and not the masses in order to keep their jobs. They weren't seeking the votes for re-election in a general election.
This was one of the end of the war processes to remove power from the states and centralize it more in the Federal government after the Civil War.
It was specifically designed to take power from the states.
Sounds like something that is and was, ripe for cronyism, inside dealings, and plenty of dirty deals Damo.
Anyway, I still want to refresh my memory on the initial reasonings behind this from the founders. A couple of years ago, I was reading as much as I could of their personal writings, rather than other people's interpretations. Unfortuntely, I've forgotten the exact wording, but I think it's important. Just yet another example of my having forgotten more than most will ever know. lol
(just joking to cover up for my bad memory)
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I am confused as to why giving people in small states and unfair advantage in ovting completely gets rid of tyranny in the world. Explain.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
How can you say the senate represents the people whenever people in Colorado get as many votes as people in California? You have 10 times the voice in govenrment that a person in California does, simply because more people moved to that specific block of land. How does this prevent tyranny of majority, again? It alters tyranny of majority, it doesn't do away with tyranny.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
It was. Several senators were elected simply because they bribed the state legislature with enough money.
I fail to see how people elected to be in a state government legislature are any less likely to believe in some sort of tyranny than the masses. And, Damo, I fail to see how a person in a large state is more likely to believe in tyranny than a person in a small state. You are shifting voting power, not doing anything at all to prevent tyranny. You're giving power to one tyrant and taking it away from the other.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Also, it's often that the head of the state legislature got elected to be senator, because he has more influence in the legislature than any other individual member.
And the current system is not? Come on! Let's look at the last few Presidencies...
Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton? (Perhaps)...
Is there a sign of cronyism?
Pretending that because we vote directly for the Senators that the cronyism disappears is just looking the other way because of preference.
This is ridiculous. Who said it was on a per capita basis? You are the king of strawmen, Watermark! I should start calling you scarecrow. It seems to be the only "people" you want to debate.
It had nothing to do with what they believed, but what they were created to represent. The State governments had representation in the Federal government, they no longer do. The "masses" have still more, and it creates a more likely tyranny of the majority than before. Those who are not beholden directly to votes from the people represent those who vote for them... They represented the state, not the people.
It would depend entirely of whether he was of the current party. A turnover, like in CO, would have put new Senators into the office if they were able to hold the seats long enough to select the Senators to represent the State.
uscitizen
Villified User
cronyism cannot exist by definition in an open democratic election.
I'm not pretending that.
I think that the system you are advocating would only make the situation worse, by consolidating power and the power of money. The only people picking our Senators would be the well-connected, the rich, big business, and power.
I think it would return the States some of the power that the Feds got greedy for after the Civil War. And if the people in your State Legislature are "the rich, big business, and well-connected" then they are the same people who become Senators. How do you think they get into the Primary to begin with?
Can you specify? Which powers would this return to them?
It would return their representation in the Federal Government. Let me see. Going from zero representation to half of a branch of government? I'd say that is pretty significant.
I don't think there is a way to do that.
However, if they are beholden to the state legislature for their jobs, if they fail to represent the state's interest they would be replaced. Now they follow the polls instead. If this were they way they were selected there would be no need to follow those polls, they would need to poll their "constituency" the legislature of the state they came from.
Anyway, it's all moot. The south lost the war, it became popular to strip the states of rights at that point, it was passed, and nobody seems to care that it effected their personal as well as the state's rights negatively.
Damo I don't know how you can claim that the State's lost their rights, or were stripped of them, or whatever, after the Civil War.
Damo, we couldn't get an anti-lynching bill (an anti-lynching bill!!), a civil rights bill, a voting acts right bill, a housing rights act bill, passed for decades on account of "State's rights".
So you know, if the states were stripped of their rights, after the civil war, I'd say it's a good damned thing, because I would have hated to see how the 20th century unfolded if they still had them!