Why does the Tea Party have a beef with this idea?
Most TPTY’s I know think the opposition is irrelevant anyway. Seems perfect for Idaho since very few bother to vote and the opposition are irrelevant, socialists, nazis and live in a ghetto called the North End. Democracy (representation) is only useful if you don’t got it.

I myself wonder at times (Why VOTE?) I’m sure Boise voted on allowing the Military to Import 6700 Tons of Sand full of Depleted Uranium and Lead from Camp Doha into your Back Yard?

You should have at least had a Vote, Because the Firm that got it then admitted they did not know it was radioactive nor how to even dispose of that type of stuff.

It is clear the Kuwait government said to “GET IT OUT OF HERE!” Then comes IRAQ, Over 1 Million Tons of Depleted Uranium there, When that clean-up starts, I hope you have a Vote in where all that Iraqi Sand goes. Because Iraq is going to say the same thing, “GET IT OUT OF HERE.” It’s already in their Water. 150 Babies a day are dying their.
Yes, DU as it is called Destroys the “DNA” so if you don’t vote on it, Maybe your MUTATED BABIES can… IF they are Born with Brains, Most are Not. Do some Reading.. Look at what DU does to the Human Genetics.
The only WMD found in Iraq was the USA’s Depleted Uranium that has killed so many US Soldiers, Iraqi Soldiers and Iraqi Civilians.
You won’t see any CLEAR AND BALANCED Reporting on That!.
73
Keith

Yeah, right let’s abolish the 17th amendment. Look at how well appointing a senator worked recently in Illinois. Blagojevich said “it’s f—— golden”

I’m with anyone who recognises that Idaho knee-jerk votes Republican, so how does it matter if only 30% vote???
Opposition is not allowed in this state, it is eternally crushed by media and the Leg. It’s so bad that if you just try to get a reader opinion that goes against the Republican line in most of the newspapers in this state, nobody will ever see your views in print.
Boise Guardian is one of the decent media, publishing even dopey comments, but it’s open to a mix of views.
The Statesman is latitudinarian in lte’s, but not necessarily open about Reader Opinion articles.
Of course there’s BW but I suspect only the politically progressive, non-Repub. choir reads it.

Sys, because democracy giveth and taketh away. Depending on what end you are on you don’t want it if it is working for you. Right now,I guess democracy ain’t working too well for Republicans and they aim to change it. The so called party of freedom knows that freedom isn’t free. If you don’t have freedom, by god you’re going to pay for it with less freedom.

Once again proving that our beloved State can produce some great minds of the 17th century.

I would think that with all of the relevant issues in this election these two characters could address at least a few of them, but, then I’ve always been an optimist. Anyone ask them about or say, immigration reform, finance reform, health care repeal, alternative energy issues, off-shore drilling, sanctions against ‘rogue states’, or other meaningful issues?

Oh, wait, that would require some thinking of their part, what ever am I thinking of.

[…] Guardian finds Raul Labrador and Vaughn Ward’s stance “worrisome.” What might as well worry about being attack by the Flathead Lake monster when visiting […]

“Radical Raul” wants to take away our right to vote for US Senator. How in the world can someone propose to eliminate voters right to participate in the process, and still get people to vote for him? I guess the term dumbing down applies here. The scary thing is that if the GOP gets a majority in congress this fall they may just try and do it.

Why doesn’t the tea party take a look at apportionment? Or rather lack of apportionment. At all levels of government our number of elected officials has remained static while the population has grown tremendously. Our vote, the vote of any individual, has been diluted to a fraction of what it once was.

I think what “dog” is trying to say is that Republicans refuse to accept that they LOST the last election and are willing to do any crazy thing to get around that fact.

In the Senate the states are in balance. Idaho has 2 votes, just like California. Our population, 1.4 million, California 36.9 million. What about PARTICIPATORY democracy do you not understand? Direct elections are best. A bunch of legislators from either party sitting in a back room picking their best pal to go to the senate is wrong no matter how you color it. A lot of brave men and women died so we could have that right, now conservatives come along and want to take it away? NO WAY!

LMAO Jim. And there you have the misguided delusions of a teabagger. “Proper balance” my kiester. This would give corporate interests even more hold than they have now. Marc Johnson examines the history, and the consequences, here.

http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2010/05/really-bad-idea.html

Dave actually that’s not quite right. 27 legislatures are Democrat controlled which would mean that the senate would have 46 Republican senators, which I’m sure is a short sighted motivation for teabaggers like Jim.

Jim V you need to go back and do some research on how the 17th came about. States legislatures bogged down in gridlock over who would be their senators. Sometimes the gridlock went on for several years, meanwhile, there was no senate representation for the states.

It was an untenable situation and it finally got fixed. I won’t pretend to know what dead men were thinking on this issue any further than the history of how we got the 17th amendment.

If (a huge “IF”) the underlying issue of campaign financing is the driving force behind the move to abolish the 17th Amendment, consider this.

Place an upper limit on the dollar amount that can be spent on any one person’s election. Guarantee each candidate a set amount of free air time on radio and TV — the airwaves are the public’s by-the-way, and the issuance of a telecommunications license by the FCC should come with this free-candidate-air-time stipulation.

Eliminate Political Action Committees whose sole purpose is to advocate for a particular person or political party.

Let each individual run on their own merits, with their own words, in the time alloted. If they get elected and bomb while in office, don’t re-elect them.

You know, democratic republicanism.