Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think this is common thought amongst conservatives or Republicans. How we choose senators is fine the way it is. Huckabee is just trying to get some attention after being out of the spotlight for so long. He was never really a mainstream candidate in the GOP.
The 17th Amendment, passed in 1912, required that each state is to elect two senators by direct popular vote. Prior to that the two senators were chosen by the state legislatures.
Amazing how when conservatives lose, they want to change the rules and take away the people's right to vote for who represents them. Imagine if state houses picked senators today. Those would be plum jobs handed out in a back room in exchange for political favors, campaign contributions or other kickbacks. It would turn the whole Senate into a swamp.
The idiot was so lame during the primary. I am amazed he still has the face to be in public. I am embarrassed for him. Loser.
Without having to run for election, raising money from outside the state donors, it takes the money out of politics placing it at the local level as it once was for over 125 years of our nations history.
Actually, you are wrong about this, and it shocks me that you would put this forward as if it were fact.
One of the big reasons the 17th amendment was put forward was because of all of the corruption at state level. Rich persons and companies were pouring money into out of state races to influence the composition of the Senate. At the time it was considered corruption of the process.
This amendment didn't rise out of a vacuum, the problems had to be pretty serious and widespread to get two-thirds of the states to agree to it.
That says more about the need to abolish the electoral college (or at least reform it so that it's like Maine's and Nebraska's) than it does about the need to return to state appointments of US Senators. As someone said, returning to the "good ole days" in that regard means returning the Senate back to a "good ole boy (gal)" patronage award.
As for Huckabee himself, one Secular Talk clip showed him saying that it's easier to amend the Constitution than it is "the word of the living God". In other words, amend the Constitution until it's the same thing as the Bible.
how each state apportions their electoral votes is up to the states themselves. and they do it by the laws of the state in question. you want an apportionment in your state? then get the laws changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruzincat
After the 17th amendment the senators only had to worry about being elected one out of six years, by spending a bunch of money on advertisements to fool the general public into thinking they have been doing their bidding.
Eliminate the 17th and the Senators will have to communicate with the state legislature on a regular basis to make sure they are doing their bidding, or else they will not have their job for long. I am not sure, did they still have to be "chosen" by the legislature every 6 years, before the 17th, or were they subject to recall at any time the legislature felt they were not being represented properly?
senators by the constitution are replaced or reaffirmed every six years, that hasnt changed with the 17th amendment. as to the possibility of recall before their term is up, i think that would be up to the individual states and their laws regarding things like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios
Actually, you are wrong about this, and it shocks me that you would put this forward as if it were fact.
One of the big reasons the 17th amendment was put forward was because of all of the corruption at state level. Rich persons and companies were pouring money into out of state races to influence the composition of the Senate. At the time it was considered corruption of the process.
This amendment didn't rise out of a vacuum, the problems had to be pretty serious and widespread to get two-thirds of the states to agree to it.
Go back to that?
really? so instead of big money going to the state elected officials, it goes to advertising companies, the senators themselves, either directly or through various PACs, and a myriad of other people and organizations. the amount of money hasnt changed, just where it goes.
The 17th Amendment, passed in 1912, required that each state is to elect two senators by direct popular vote. Prior to that the two senators were chosen by the state legislatures.
Amazing how when conservatives lose, they want to change the rules and take away the people's right to vote for who represents them. Those would be plum jobs handed out in a back room in exchange for political favors, campaign contributions or other kickbacks.
You've got it completely backward. Huckabee is making this suggestion not because Republicans are losing but because they are winning in legislatures around the country. The 17th Amendment, moreover, resulted in a centralization of power in a party's national headquarters, where the back-room deals occur with even less influence from the people. In other words, the repeal of the 17th Amendment would be a triumph for democracy.
That would be one way of getting money out of the senate races, and for that reason I doubt it would ever pass.
It might seem as a way to get money out of the game, but it wouldn't. Big business would still find a way to monetize the process. They'd just load up the reelection coffers of state legislators that would vote in the senator they want.
The only way to get money out of the game is to outright ban donations over a certain amount of money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
