Repealing the 17th Amendment

[Antonio the Sixth]

How is this issue even being debated ? I can't believe there are people who seriously support this in the XXIth Century.

I actually would support it in theory, the principle of it.

Unfortunately, the way House elections are run, the Senate is currently the only legislative body elected in really competitive races. If we found a way to stop gerrymandering, though, I would actually support abandoning popular elections to the Senate.

So you consider 2-degrees suffrage an appropriate system for modern democracies ?

[Franzl]

I would also agree to abolishing the Senate entirely (again, under the condition that House elections are reformed). But I really don't see the point of having two popularly elected bodies. (It's even worse at state level...why does any state need a House and Senate? Nebraska gets it.)

The Senate, historically, is not
supposed to be an overly political institution...and popular elections, IMO, make the Senate a lot more political than it should be.

BTW: Germany's Bundesrat, in principle, is not much different from what the Senate was originally. I'd agree to aboilition of it as well, mind you...but I really wouldn't want a second elected body, if we have to keep the institution.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think that a body representing lower entities in federal States makes sense. Of course I also think the Senate should have far less power than the House. But in any case, a popular election is better simply because the main goal is to represent the people. The problem with the German Bundesrat is indeed that it is mainly a House of Land governments, and I find silly to have Land government exercing legislative power. It should be a popularly electe House where Lander are equally (or even degressively progressively) represented.

I totally agree about State Houses, though.

[Franzl]

One of the main problems with the Bundesrat is that it makes state elections about federal politics when we should be voting for the best state government.

And because of the parliamentary nature of state parliaments (no fixed terms), state elections can virtually happen at any time, and have effect on the composition of the Bundesrat.

And equally unfortunately, with a few exceptions, the Bundesrat almost always finds a reason why its approval is necessary.

It's just an unnecessary way of blocking the elected Bundestag from fulfilling its mandate.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Indeed that's what I said. The solution is simple : elect the Bundesrat through popular vote.

[Franzl]

Indeed that's what I said. The solution is simple : elect the Bundesrat through popular vote.

But that defeats the entire purpose of the Bundesrat, doesn't it? (Representation of the Länder). Not saying I necessarily believe the Länder need representation (I don't.).

Just abolish the body before having people vote for two different legislatures.

Really....what do we need the Bundesrat for?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Indeed that's what I said. The solution is simple : elect the Bundesrat through popular vote.

But that defeats the entire purpose of the Bundesrat, doesn't it? (Representation of the Länder). Not saying I necessarily believe the Länder need representation (I don't.).

Not at all. Representing Länder doesn't mean representing Länder governments. Read my post above : "It should be a popularly electe House where Lander are equally (or even degressively progressively) represented." It's more or less the way the American Senate is elected.

[The Mikado]

Quite honestly, Upper Houses are just a silly idea.  An irrelevant appendage that just duplicates the other's functions (America) or has no functions at all (Canada, among many others).  Unicameralism is so much more sensible, even if arguing for it does put me on the same side as Israel for once .  (Even a broken clock and all that)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Quite honestly, Upper Houses are just a silly idea.  An irrelevant appendage that just duplicates the other's functions (America) or has no functions at all (Canada, among many others).  Unicameralism is so much more sensible, even if arguing for it does put me on the same side as Israel for once .  (Even a broken clock and all that)

In France I would support abolishing the Senate, but only if we adopt PR for elections in the Assembly. Otherwise the party in power becomes too hegemonic.

[nclib]

The 17th amendment is a violation of the rights of the state governments....

The idea that a government has inherent rights is troublesome; the idea that the Constitution violates the rights of a government is very troublesome. 

Yes. There are plenty of times when legislation should not necessarily go with the popular will. But that has to do with protecting human rights, not the rights of a government. There is no evidence that a state government is more likely to violate human rights than a federal government is; actually in America's history, it's more often been the reverse.

[stegosaurus]

I could get behind this, it would be nice to have at least one section of the legislative branch be free from the calculated politics of getting reelected. Most people, we will fail to to realize, are not as politically informed as we are and will thus vote for candidates for a myriad of retarded reasons ("I'd rather have a beer with that one!", "I like his speeches", "He plays the saxophone!", etc). It could very well benefit the process if one branch of legislators weren't subjected to appearing appealing to America in general.

[The Mikado]

Getting rid of the Senate altogether would be better.  Sadly, US isn't fond of unicameralism.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Sadly Fortunately, US isn't fond of unicameralism.

Fixed.

[Хahar 🤔]

officepark, stop doing that. If you disagree with something, explain why. It's not cute or funny or anything when you empty-quote, cross out one word and replace it with its antonym, and add a smiley.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The 17th amendment is a violation of the rights of the state governments. A little state accountability on senators via the legislatures is a very good thing. So both in theory and practice it would work. Repeal all of Wilson's screw ups from 1913 (FED IRS, Income Tax, Direct election of senators)

I'd like to remind that the people of a respective states have a clear constitutional right to deciding whether and how said constitution can be amended. Or Am I missing something?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

officepark, stop doing that. If you disagree with something, explain why. It's not cute or funny or anything when you empty-quote, cross out one word and replace it with its antonym, and add a smiley.

Personally, I do support bicameralism in a federal countries, like U.S. However, in unitary countries, bicameralism is simply pointless.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The 17th amendment is a violation of the rights of the state governments. A little state accountability on senators via the legislatures is a very good thing. So both in theory and practice it would work. Repeal all of Wilson's screw ups from 1913 (FED IRS, Income Tax, Direct election of senators)

I'd like to remind that the people of a respective states have a clear constitutional right to deciding whether and how said constitution can be amended. Or Am I missing something?

Blaming Wilson for the 17th Amendment is kinda like blaming Obama for TARP.  Both got implemented on their watch, but neither had anything to do with their becoming law.  The 17th had already been approved by 29 States when Wilson took office.  Not only that, but a major reason the Senate approved the 17th Amendment in 1911 and agreed to send it to the States was that the number of States that had called for a Constitutional Convention to propose just such an amendment had gotten perilously close to the then threshold of thirty-two States (thirty-four today).  Rather than risk a Convention which might do more than just propose a single amendment, the holdouts in the Senate caved and agreed to popular election.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

officepark, stop doing that. If you disagree with something, explain why. It's not cute or funny or anything when you empty-quote, cross out one word and replace it with its antonym, and add a smiley.

I wasn't intending to be funny. I meant what I said.

[President Mitt]

officepark, stop doing that. If you disagree with something, explain why. It's not cute or funny or anything when you empty-quote, cross out one word and replace it with its antonym, and add a smiley.

I wasn't intending to be funny. I meant what I said.

Intended point in bold.

[Eraserhead]

No thanks.

[The Lord Marbury]

I can't really see a good reason to repeal it.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

officepark, stop doing that. If you disagree with something, explain why. It's not cute or funny or anything when you empty-quote, cross out one word and replace it with its antonym, and add a smiley.

Personally, I do support bicameralism in a federal countries, like U.S. However, in unitary countries, bicameralism is simply pointless.

I agree, but I'm surprised you would support such provincialism.

[CarlSchulz]

Repealing the 17th amendment is an idiotic, purely reactionary idea that would do much more harm than good.

This.