Repeal the 17th Amendment?

[MaC]

It would do us good.
The senators would focus more on the needs for their state.  The senators used to be chosen by the legislature of each state.  The legislature knew what was in the best interest of the state and thus chose a delegate which would represent the state's veiws-not necessarily the partisan or ideological movement that was popular.
The argument against is that more democracy is a better thing-but I don't think the additional democracy has really done any good for us.  I'm perfectly fine with democracy-the representatives still get elected and since the districts are larger than a 'whole state' they can better serve the interests of the people they represent.

Your thoughts?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I'd scrap the senate.

[MaC]

I'd scrap the senate.

being well aware of you 1,000 reps idea-is what is proposed better than the current system?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I'd scrap the senate.

being well aware of you 1,000 reps idea-is what is proposed better than the current system?

I'd do it as a fully nationbased proportional representation system with 100 districts of 10 reps each. With each district being based of 1/100th of the US population.

[MaC]

I'd scrap the senate.

being well aware of you 1,000 reps idea-is what is proposed better than the current system?

I'd do it as a fully nationbased proportional representation system with 100 districts of 10 reps each. With each district being based of 1/100th of the US population.

answer my question plz

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I'd scrap the senate.

being well aware of you 1,000 reps idea-is what is proposed better than the current system?

I'd do it as a fully nationbased proportional representation system with 100 districts of 10 reps each. With each district being based of 1/100th of the US population.

answer my question plz

Yes I think it would be better than our current system which is de facto gerrymandering by ensuring that empty wastelands like the interior west get equal representation.

[SPC]

It would do us good.
The senators would focus more on the needs for their state.  The senators used to be chosen by the legislature of each state.  The legislature knew what was in the best interest of the state and thus chose a delegate which would represent the state's veiws-not necessarily the partisan or ideological movement that was popular.

I agree.

The argument against is that more democracy is a better thing-but I don't think the additional democracy has really done any good for us.  I'm perfectly fine with democracy-the representatives still get elected and since the districts are larger than a 'whole state' they can better serve the interests of the people they represent.

Your thoughts?

Democracy is insanity by consensus

[David S]

It would certainly change the makeup of the Senate. As an example the Michigan legislature has been controlled by Republicans for some time now so we would probably have two Republican Senators instead of the two Democrats we have now. But it could work the other way too. And there still wouldn't be any Libertarians in the Senate. Overall I don't know how much of a difference it would make.

[Padfoot]

It would do us good.
The senators would focus more on the needs for their state.  The senators used to be chosen by the legislature of each state.  The legislature knew what was in the best interest of the state and thus chose a delegate which would represent the state's veiws-not necessarily the partisan or ideological movement that was popular.

I'm calling BS on this one.  State legislatures are even more highly partisan than the national Congress.  That's how we end up with the horrible gerrymandering of House districts.  Do you really beleive those same people are going to put partisanship aside and appoint a Senator that doesn't support their party 100%?  It would mean the extinction of moderates and would only create even more gridlock in the Senate.

[MaC]

It would mean the extinction of moderates...

couldn't resist

[Angel of Death]

I have a better idea. Elect the Senate simultaneously by a (crude) form of proportional representation. That way you get close to a 50-50 makeup and/or the election of several third party candidates.

[MasterJedi]

Ah, no thanks.

[Padfoot]

I have a better idea. Elect the Senate simultaneously by a (crude) form of proportional representation. That way you get close to a 50-50 makeup and/or the election of several third party candidates.

I like this idea but not for the Senate.  I woud prefer to use a proportional method for the House at the state level.  I'll use Massachusetts as an example of what I mean since its 10 Representatives is an easy number to work with.  In my little scenario each party would nominate 10 candidates for US Representative from Massachusetts and rank them from one to ten.  Voters would then vote for their preferred party.  Then, for every 10% of the vote a party receives they send one of their nominees to Congress.  Since election results rarely are so neat in dividing up the vote percentages there would need to be some "rounding and tie-breaker rules."  Lets say, for example the following highly unlikely scenario occurs: 65%-D, 20%-R, 10%-G, and 5%-L.  In this scenario Democrats have clearly won 6 seats, Republicans 2, and Greens 1.  However that leaves 1 seat still undecided and the remaining 10% of the vote divided evenly between Democrats and Libertarians.  In this case a run-off election would be held between the #7 candidate on the Democratic ticket and the #1 candidate on the Libertarian ticket with the winner taking the seat.  Since an exact tie is highly improbable, it is highly unlikely such a run-off would be necessary.  What's more likely is that the race will be decided by a fraction of a percet.  Lets change up the results a little and say 64.51%-D, 20.22%-R, 9.5%-G, and 5.77%-L.  In this scenario Democrats still have 6 seats and Republicans clearly win 2 once again.  After that it gets a little more complicated since the remaining 20% of the vote is split four ways with no party acheiving the 10% required to elect one of its nominees leaving two seats unoccupied.  In this case the "counted percetage" of the Republican and Democratic total would be subtracted giving the following result: 4.51%-D, 0.22%-R, 9.5%-G, 5.77%-L.  Since the Libertarians and Greens are the closest to 10% their two #1 candidates would take the last two seats.

This method of electing House members has several drawbacks though.

1. Minor parties would still fair poorly in both small states and the unlikely exact tie scenario.
2. Running as an independent would be near impossible.
3. Party moderates would most likely be stuck near the bottom of a party's ticket while more "pure" party members would be at the top causing partisanship to increase.
4. All the nominees may be concentrated in one area rather than being even spread throughout the state.

[Emsworth]

No. Prior to the 17th amendment, both houses of a state legislature had to agree in order to elect a candidate. When the two houses were controlled by different parties, it often happened that they could not come to an agreement--as a result, the state was left without full representation in the Senate. 

[Democratic Hawk]

No

[SPC]

I have a better idea. Elect the Senate simultaneously by a (crude) form of proportional representation. That way you get close to a 50-50 makeup and/or the election of several third party candidates.

I like this idea but not for the Senate.  I woud prefer to use a proportional method for the House at the state level.  I'll use Massachusetts as an example of what I mean since its 10 Representatives is an easy number to work with.  In my little scenario each party would nominate 10 candidates for US Representative from Massachusetts and rank them from one to ten.  Voters would then vote for their preferred party.  Then, for every 10% of the vote a party receives they send one of their nominees to Congress.  Since election results rarely are so neat in dividing up the vote percentages there would need to be some "rounding and tie-breaker rules."  Lets say, for example the following highly unlikely scenario occurs: 65%-D, 20%-R, 10%-G, and 5%-L.  In this scenario Democrats have clearly won 6 seats, Republicans 2, and Greens 1.  However that leaves 1 seat still undecided and the remaining 10% of the vote divided evenly between Democrats and Libertarians.  In this case a run-off election would be held between the #7 candidate on the Democratic ticket and the #1 candidate on the Libertarian ticket with the winner taking the seat.  Since an exact tie is highly improbable, it is highly unlikely such a run-off would be necessary.  What's more likely is that the race will be decided by a fraction of a percet.  Lets change up the results a little and say 64.51%-D, 20.22%-R, 9.5%-G, and 5.77%-L.  In this scenario Democrats still have 6 seats and Republicans clearly win 2 once again.  After that it gets a little more complicated since the remaining 20% of the vote is split four ways with no party acheiving the 10% required to elect one of its nominees leaving two seats unoccupied.  In this case the "counted percetage" of the Republican and Democratic total would be subtracted giving the following result: 4.51%-D, 0.22%-R, 9.5%-G, 5.77%-L.  Since the Libertarians and Greens are the closest to 10% their two #1 candidates would take the last two seats.

This method of electing House members has several drawbacks though.

1. Minor parties would still fair poorly in both small states and the unlikely exact tie scenario.
2. Running as an independent would be near impossible.
3. Party moderates would most likely be stuck near the bottom of a party's ticket while more "pure" party members would be at the top causing partisanship to increase.
4. All the nominees may be concentrated in one area rather than being even spread throughout the state.

I like the idea, but it sounds a little too partisan. How about for the Massachusetts example, you have each party nominate 10 nominees, third-parties could run if they wanted. However, each person would be able to vote for 10 nominees, regardless of party. For example, I could vote for 7 Libertarians, 2 Republicans, and 1 Democrat. That way, the voters get to choose the "#1" person instead of the party. Then, all candidates receiving   more than 50% of the vote get elected to Congress. Let's say 5 Democrats and 3 Republicans get more than 50% of the vote. Then, a runn-off election is held with the remaining 22 candidates; 5 Democrats, 7 Republicans, and 10 Libertarians. 1 Republican and 1 Libertarian get more than 50%, so they become the remaining representatives. Although more realisticly, a third-party would probably run only one nominee to increase their odds of winning.

Disadvantages:
*Third-parties would only run one candidate to increase their odds of winning. This makes it so I would have to choose the lesser of two evils for the other nine candidates.

[Padfoot]

I like the idea, but it sounds a little too partisan. How about for the Massachusetts example, you have each party nominate 10 nominees, third-parties could run if they wanted. However, each person would be able to vote for 10 nominees, regardless of party. For example, I could vote for 7 Libertarians, 2 Republicans, and 1 Democrat. That way, the voters get to choose the "#1" person instead of the party. Then, all candidates receiving   more than 50% of the vote get elected to Congress. Let's say 5 Democrats and 3 Republicans get more than 50% of the vote. Then, a runn-off election is held with the remaining 22 candidates; 5 Democrats, 7 Republicans, and 10 Libertarians. 1 Republican and 1 Libertarian get more than 50%, so they become the remaining representatives. Although more realisticly, a third-party would probably run only one nominee to increase their odds of winning.

Disadvantages:
*Third-parties would only run one candidate to increase their odds of winning. This makes it so I would have to choose the lesser of two evils for the other nine candidates.

That method would also become slightly difficult in a state with a large number of representatives.  I can't imagine living in California and having to choose 53 Representatives out of hundreads of nominees!  It would be the most exhausting ballot ever!

Running with your idea though, perhaps after choosing a party the voter was able to rank the candidates in that party.  Then the candidates on that party's list who were the most popular get the top billing.  That gives maoderates a better shot and takes the ranking out of the hands of the highly partisan. 

As far as minor parties go, I think that once they got their first win, even if it was only one candidate, it would be easier for them to get more candidates elected in subsequent elections.  I'm fairly convinced that if just one state were to elect a Green or Libertarian to Congress and that person gave off a positive image for the party, more third party candidates would become competitive at least in that region if not nationwide.

[SPC]

You're idea would work for intraparty moderates, but what about the independent moderates who don't identify with either party? To solve the problem of the exhausting ballot, how about instead of having to choose 53 representatives, you can choose <= 53 representatives. Then, I could still choose all the Libertarians, pro-choice Republicans, and conservative Democrats, and not have to waste my vote on anybody else. This also prevents people from being afraid to "throw their vote away" For example, on my district's ballot last November, the three candidates were:

John Campbell (R)
Steve Young (D)
Bruce Cohen (L)
 
Though this district went to Chris Cox in 2004 with more than 60%, John Campbell only got 59%, because Bruce Cohen received 2%. The number that Bruce Cohen got would probably be higher if people weren't afraid of "wasting their vote" John Campbell hasn't done anything to upset me, yet, but Bruce Cohen is closer to my ideology. So, under my system, i would be able to vote for both of them. i could also vote for Dana Rohbacher, the person running in the District north of mine. So if 48% of the people voting for Campbellalso voted for Cohen, they would both be elected to Congress.