AZ: Rep. Flake not big on 17th Amendment

[Miles]

Link.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[RogueBeaver]

Hopefully that's just a throwaway line. In two words: Rod Blagojevich. Flake's one of my favorite Congresscritters but disappointed with him here.

[Zioneer]

Hopefully that's just a throwaway line. In two words: Rod Blagojevich. Flake's one of my favorite Congresscritters but disappointed with him here.

It seems more and more GOP senatorial nominees are pushing for the repeal of the 17th amendment these days. I don't understand why.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I really don't know what the rationale for this is.

[RogueBeaver]

Hopefully that's just a throwaway line. In two words: Rod Blagojevich. Flake's one of my favorite Congresscritters but disappointed with him here.

It seems more and more GOP senatorial nominees are pushing for the repeal of the 17th amendment these days. I don't understand why.

Lee and Paul are the only ones I can think of. No GOP 2012 senatorial nominee in a contested race is doing that, at least none that I've heard. When I first heard this 2 years ago it was confined to Paulites and fringe wacko backbenchers like Paul Broun (GA) or Louie Gohmert (TX).

[Miles]

Hopefully that's just a throwaway line. In two words: Rod Blagojevich. Flake's one of my favorite Congresscritters but disappointed with him here.

It seems more and more GOP senatorial nominees are pushing for the repeal of the 17th amendment these days. I don't understand why.

Well, this is what the national state legislature control map looks like:



If this was the electorate, the Rs would have a strong majority.

[morgieb]

What happens in those purple states?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Hopefully that's just a throwaway line. In two words: Rod Blagojevich. Flake's one of my favorite Congresscritters but disappointed with him here.

It seems more and more GOP senatorial nominees are pushing for the repeal of the 17th amendment these days. I don't understand why.

The idea is that Senators would be more accountable to the states, and so the states would retain more sovereignty vis-a-vis the federal government.  Also, a general trust in the way the Founders set up the system. It's basically symbolic since no one expects it could actually be reversed (at least, not that I've heard).

[Miles]

What happens in those purple states?

They're split between upper/lower house; also, the Nebraska legislature is unicameral and nonpartisan.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What happens in those purple states?

They're split between upper/lower house; also, the Nebraska legislature is unicameral and nonpartisan.

Sometimes state legislatures have had problems coming to an agreement on who to vote for, such as this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_New_York,_1825/1826

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Because it's much easier to bribe state legislators than to flood airwaves.

Joe Miller wants to repeal the 17th Amendment, too, IIRC.

[tmthforu94]

Richard Mourdock, FWIW, has also stated he's not a fan of the 17th, which is ironic, because he wouldn't have beaten Lugar if the state legislature made the decision.

[DrScholl]

There really shouldn't be a Senate at all, but since there is one, it should be elected by voters. A unicameral legislature would be much better, but that will never happen because too many states like the clout of Senators.

[SPC]

What happens in those purple states?

They're split between upper/lower house; also, the Nebraska legislature is unicameral and nonpartisan.

Sometimes state legislatures have had problems coming to an agreement on who to vote for, such as this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_New_York,_1825/1826

The Repeal Amendment would just have to clarify that if a vacancy is not filled within one month, and the state does not have a procedure for ending deadlocked senate appointments, the seat shall be subject to a special election.

[Gary J]

To avoid deadlocks, with legislative election of US Senators, you could give each member of the legislature a vote in a single secret ballot. That would avoid the problem of two houses failing to agree, as sometimes happened pre-17th Amendment.

[Zioneer]

Hopefully that's just a throwaway line. In two words: Rod Blagojevich. Flake's one of my favorite Congresscritters but disappointed with him here.

It seems more and more GOP senatorial nominees are pushing for the repeal of the 17th amendment these days. I don't understand why.

Lee and Paul are the only ones I can think of. No GOP 2012 senatorial nominee in a contested race is doing that, at least none that I've heard. When I first heard this 2 years ago it was confined to Paulites and fringe wacko backbenchers like Paul Broun (GA) or Louie Gohmert (TX).

Richard Mourdock said it once, IIRC. And Ted Cruz might've said so as well. And a few of the failed GOP contenders from the Tea Party faction have said the same thing; I seem to remember Liljenquist talking about the 17th amendment.

[Svensson]

I do not even begin to get it when libertarian-leaners start going on about the 17th Amendment. I'm not sure why, but it doesn't exactly strike me as very libertarian, or even very conservative, to take the power to elect policymakers out of the hands of the people in favor of letting politicians elect politicians.

[Zioneer]

I do not even begin to get it when libertarian-leaners start going on about the 17th Amendment. I'm not sure why, but it doesn't exactly strike me as very libertarian, or even very conservative, to take the power to elect policymakers out of the hands of the people in favor of letting politicians elect politicians.

From what I understand, it's supposed to be about "state's rights". Basically, these specific libertarians see modern Senators as too beholden to campaigning, and trying to give special interests (apparently the will of the people is a special interest), not states, everything they want. Having the legislature appoint senators ensures that the Senator always has an eye on on the needs of the state legislature, and therefore the state itself.

I don't think it makes sense, but that's how I've heard it explained.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When I think of the CA legislature, or the Illinois legislature, I just break into uncontrollable laughter reading the above. And can you imagine the gerrymandering fights over state legislative lines?  Oh my!

[jimrtex]

What happens in those purple states?

Congress used its power to regulate the manner of congressional elections to specify what would happen.

If the two houses did not choose the same senator then they would meet in joint session and vote once per week until they did choose a senator.  The only time this didn't work was when there was a 3-way split.

If the legislature fails to elect a senator during its session, the authority to appoint a temporary senator does not revert to the governor.  The temporary appointment authority simply recognized that legislatures were not in continuous session.  Many would only meet for a few weeks, with farmer-legislators travelling to the state capital in the winter.  If a senate vacancy occurred during a legislative recess, the legislature would have made their appointment as soon as they were in session.

Governor Blagojevich would have nothing to do with choosing the replacement, unless he called a special session.

One perceived advantage of having legislature elect senators is that it s believed that senators would be more interested in representing the interests of their respective States, and not imposing federal mandates.  It would have been unthinkable that a senator would brag about not having contact with the governor.

On the other hand, it would have the potential of corrupting legislative elections.  The Lincoln-Douglas debates were trying to convince voters to elect legislators who would vote for Abraham Lincoln or Stephen Douglas.  Rather than voting based on local issues, voters were encouraged to vote based on government in the territories.

[SPC]

I do not even begin to get it when libertarian-leaners start going on about the 17th Amendment. I'm not sure why, but it doesn't exactly strike me as very libertarian, or even very conservative, to take the power to elect policymakers out of the hands of the people in favor of letting politicians elect politicians.

For libertarians (or at least myself), democracy is a means rather than an end in itself. Repealing the 17th Amendment would not eliminate Senate elections, but merely conduct them in a jurisdiction where the individual has a greater say in the outcome. The state legislators who would select a Senator would have to be more responsive to their constituents' demands than a Senator that represents an entire state rather than a single state legislative district.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I do not even begin to get it when libertarian-leaners start going on about the 17th Amendment. I'm not sure why, but it doesn't exactly strike me as very libertarian, or even very conservative, to take the power to elect policymakers out of the hands of the people in favor of letting politicians elect politicians.

For libertarians (or at least myself), democracy is a means rather than an end in itself. Repealing the 17th Amendment would not eliminate Senate elections, but merely conduct them in a jurisdiction where the individual has a greater say in the outcome. The state legislators who would select a Senator would have to be more responsive to their constituents' demands than a Senator that represents an entire state rather than a single state legislative district.

...

...

What?

Certainly the state legislators who would select a Senator would not be more responsive to their constituents' demands than the constituents themselves would be, by electing the Senator directly.

While it's true that the votes of 'individuals' would matter more under this atavistic-aristocratic-cronyist system, it would be a very limited set of individuals.