Talk Elections

I say yes. This process gave the states a real "voice" in Washington.

I think a popular vote would be preferable, just the way it is. I'm not a partisan either, I don't care if the other method benifts a particular party. If senators were to be appointed how would this help anyone? What would be made better?

Senators were appointed by the states until 1918. I don't know exactly why they changed it...

I think I found an answer

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment17/

It could distort the legislative election process, with voters supporting legislative candidates on the basis of who they would support for Senate.  

No

I like it just fine the way it is.

Yes.

One problem with today's method is that highly-populated, urban areas of a state have the most influence in choosing a senator.  Having the state legislature involved in the process would give less-populated areas a stronger voice in their representation in the U.S. Senate.

I think a mix of the two methods would be best.

Actually, the senate should be abolished, but if it remains in existance the people should elect senators.

I would reform the Senate, not abolish it, but I would ccause it to lose a good bit of its power.  I'd restore the Senate to being selected by the satte legislatires, but I would give it a role in law-making only if the law affects the state governments.  That would give the Senate more time to properly fillfill its advice and consent role and to deal with impeachments (they aren't just for presidents after all).

Things are just fine the way they are.

Yes state legislatures should elect the senators. It was intended to be this way so that both the people AND the state government could have a say in congress (although it's arguably still that way thanks to gerrymandering of congressional districts). When the senate confirmed the seven Supreme Court justices who would rule in the majority on Roe v. Wade, a majority of the states had laws outlawing abortion. Had we still had senators elected by the legislatures they might not have confirmed these justices, seeing that their opinions went against the laws that their legislature had passed. Given this is slightly farfetched but still, it gives conservatives something to think about.

They changed it because everybody thought rich people could simply buy off state legislatures and win a seat.  Not sure how true that was, probably exaggerated a lot.

Why in the world should the senate be abolished? To remove the voice of the small states?

LOL true enough.

The grace of the American system of government is that it sets up a slow but steady decline of the ratio of 'elite theory' and true democracy.  No better example than cutting off the middle-men and keeping the Senate's attentioned on We the Peoples' cue.

The more layers between us and federal representation is a geometric growth of reindeer games to be played out of our field of vision.

But I don't think we're ready to abolish bi-cameral system just yet.  The House isn't ready to start simmering down and be a force of calming, responsible govt.  And We the People aren't ready to make it do so.  'til then, we're pouring coffee in the saucer to cool it down.

Sen. Statesrights,  Abolishing the Senate would bring legislation closer to the ideal of "one person one vote," the Senate has represented the ideal of States' Rights from the get go...but it was a way for folks in less populous states to get a disproportionate amount of power, per capita.  Certainly you can see the motive, even if you disagree with it, right?

I see the point but that is the whole point of our system.  The small states are supposed to be up to the same levels as the large states. If the Senate were shut down and the EC eliminated the small states would be voiceless.

The 17th amendment was almost as stupid as the 16th amendment. It was passed because deadlock in state legislatures (i.e. one chamber Republican, one chamber Democrat) left some states without representation.

And this isn't a democracy, in the traditional sense. The Senate was meant to make the federal government accountable to the states. A two-billion people city in California shouldn't be able to pass laws for the entire country just because they have 434 of the representatives.

What does the entire Bill of Rights do? Kill off democracy, because it sucks. Our founders were trying to secure the People's rights.

Rich people can buy off state legislatures to pass a law. Or any other legislature. Paranoid. Want to keep corruption out of the Senate? You need a branch that doesn't pander to factions of the people.

I favor this as well, for two main reasons.  

First, it makes the Senate responsible to the State governments, which was the point in the first place.  

Second, this might actually increase interest in statewide elections, which are mostly ignored nowadays.  How many people here can honestly say that they know much about their state legislators?  All the vast majority of people care about today are federal elections.

Because the Feds think the 10th amendment has a "just kidding" clause at the end of it.

And they act like that too!

That's an excellent metaphor!  I think I'll use it.

This would result in a lot more consevrative democrats in the senate

The only Democrats I approve of.

Does that not take away from the will of the people.b

This country is not supposed to be a pure democracy, this allows for a each state to have a say.

Yeah, but it should be for the people of that state to choose, not elected officials. And I think that would also jeopardise the dynamic of U.S politics. If the legislatures chose, then for example, we would never have states with one democrat, one republican senator, and states with heavily one-party legislatures (Massachussets, Idaho) would never see a senator from the party. Takes away from it don't you think

Not really, it would make for interesting choices in those states where one house is Republican controlled and one house is Democratic controlled, like here in NY(Rep Senate, Dem Assembly).  

Not true.  The Congress had regulated the manner in which the legislatures conducted their senatorial elections, such that in the case of a deadlock between the chambers, they would vote jointly.

Alternatively it would convert the legislative elections into contests over which person would be elected Senator.  People would watch the senatorial debate (ala Lincoln-Douglas) and decide who to vote for in the statehouse race, totally ignoring all local issues.

It would be good if there was more interest in state elections, but I don't think state races should be tied to federal races since the issues are so different.

The ideological differences are stronger at the federal level and that's why there is split ticket voting.

I think Democrats would be very happy to see the voice of the small states silenced.

Why would the Democrats be happy to see the voice of the small states silenced?  This would include Vermont, Rhode Island, Hawaii....

Very true. Most Dhimmicrats hate rural America.

I wonder why that might be (http://images.usatoday.com/news/electmap.jpg)...

I hate rural America like rural conservative hate urban america.

It all balances out.

Word.

The popular vote is the best way. We get our say as a whole, not appointing state Legislatures to do it, especially if we as a majority would disagree with the appointment of a certain person.

If we are moving back towards a government that actually follows the constitution we need to do the following things :

-Go back to appointing Senators through the Legislature
-Repeal the two term only for president Amendment
-Repeal the 16th Amendment

You could have outgoing legislators rather than incoming legislators pick the senators.