libertarians: should us senators be elected by the people?

[SPC]

The people should not directly elect their senators.  They should elect people on the STATE level to appoint people to go on to the federal government.  This makes state elections more meaningful and their power more important, therefore, increasing the power of the states.  Direct election of senators is another attack on state's rights.

How is this an attack on states' rights?

I believe the direct election of U.S. senators by all the people of a state promotes democracy and freedom because then these U.S. senators represent the voice of the majority of all state residents, not the interests of the ruling party of the state legislature.

I understand that the U.S. house is the voice of the people, but the job of U.S. representatives is to serve the interests of your district first, and then the state.  U.S. senators further the interests of the entire state, and should therefore be elected by a majority of all state residents, not on a district-by-district basis, which would occur if they were elected by state legislatures (which are elected by district)

Having state legislatures elect U.S senators would be especially dangerous in states that have a history of being very partisan.

For example, both senators from North Dakota would likely be republicans if it were up to the legislature to decide, but the people of North Dakota chose Democrats.

Our constitution is a wonderful document, but it is a document that should reflect true democratic values first and foremost, not rigidly chained to the beliefs and concerns of our founding fathers, no matter how well intentioned they were.

This country is not, nor ever was meant to be a democracy. We are a republic, plain and simple.

Truer words have never been typed on this forum.

But, the entire point of the Senate was to represent state's interests in Washington; the people already had representatives in the House. To have a directly elected Senate just creates redundancy. COuld you imagine how chaotic the U.N. would be if we had countries' ambassadors directly elected instead of appointed by those countries' governments?

[SPC]

But, the entire point of the Senate was to represent state's interests in Washington; the people already had representatives in the House.

I will ask again what I asked before: What is a state, if it is not the group of people living in a particular area? Why is it the case that the Senate represents a state's interests if it is chosen by the people of that state indirectly, but not if it is chosen by the people of that state directly?

Okay, replace "state" with "state government".

[SPC]

But, the entire point of the Senate was to represent state's interests in Washington; the people already had representatives in the House.

I will ask again what I asked before: What is a state, if it is not the group of people living in a particular area? Why is it the case that the Senate represents a state's interests if it is chosen by the people of that state indirectly, but not if it is chosen by the people of that state directly?

Okay, replace "state" with "state government".

If the Senate were a body responsible for coordinating or regulating the state governments themselves, then your argument would make sense. But why should the Senate represent state governments, when the chief purpose of the Senate is to participate in making laws that directly regulate the people?

Remember that the framers of the Constitution wanted seperation of powers. Hitler was very popular with the people, but that doesn't mean he was a good leader. There are two houses of Congress, of which the people already have a voice in one. To allow the people to have a voice in the other would be pure redundancy. Also, remember that the Constitution advocated both states' rights and personal rights. Who better to choose someone who advocates personal rights than the people? Likewise, who better to choose someone who advocates states' rights than the states?

[SPC]

Remember that the framers of the Constitution wanted seperation of powers. Hitler was very popular with the people, but that doesn't mean he was a good leader. There are two houses of Congress, of which the people already have a voice in one. To allow the people to have a voice in the other would be pure redundancy.

The argumentum ad hitlerum aside, you raise a very good point. I oppose "mob rule" just as much as you do. This is precisely why the Senate and the House of Representatives should not be chosen in the same manner. If the two are chosen differently, then proper checks and balances can arise, but if the two are chosen in the same way, then each house would tend to simply rubber stamp the other's decisions.

But as it stands, the Senate and the House are chosen differently. The Senate is chosen without any reference to the population at all. That, I feel, sufficiently differentiates it from the house to allow it to become an effective check.

It is possible (but doubtful) that further distinguishing the two houses by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would improve this check even further. But remember that there are also costs associated. A filibuster or some other equivalent tactic might block the selection of a senator. Even if filibusters on senator selection are forbidden, it is possible that a bicameral state legislature might be unable to choose a candidate if the two houses are controlled by different parties. (Note that this will not necessarily "force a compromise" between the two parties.) There was a time when the state of Delaware went unrepresented in the Senate for four years due to such a deadlock. These significant costs outweigh any potential marginal benefit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

After the Civil War, the Senate, even though chosen by the state legislatures, was very far from a guardian of states' "rights."

I'm glad to see that we're actually having an intelligent debate on this. aother reason for repelation of the 17th Amendment is that it would localize politics. There's a reason that the Senate was chosen by the legislatures nd the House by the people rather than the other way around. If politics are local, then government's decisions are less likely to be drastic. Likewise, if Senators are chosen by the legislatures rather than by the people, then the decisions are made by the local state legislature districts, rather than by the entire state. This also works for the HoR.