Comments on: Give Legislators Your Right To Senate Vote?

By: Kappa TA

Kappa TA — Sat, 08 May 2010 18:58:40 +0000

Dean,

I totally agree with you. Setting limits is what we all have to do in our daily lives. If we have to do it, then politicians should do it too. Anyone and everyone should be allowed to run for public office; yet only those with big war chests seem to make it into office. On the matter of the 17th amendment, I wish Mr. Labrador would drop it and stick to the economy. Despite recent legacy media headlines, unemployment is still high. I’m tired of half-full headlines when the reality is the economy is half empty with no immediate relief in sight. We’re supposed to learn from our mistakes not repeat them. I’m glad BG followers take the time to parse important issues and learn from each other.

By: Dean Gunderson

Dean Gunderson — Sat, 08 May 2010 00:40:24 +0000

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.

By: JIMV

JIMV — Fri, 07 May 2010 17:41:33 +0000

The fix brought us the unfunded mandate and made the senate unaccountable to the states…it was the single biggest mistake since prohibition. It also made the senate as buyable by special interests across the nation as the house has always been to local interests. All a senator is is a house member with a longer term but even less accountable.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 07 May 2010 04:43:35 +0000

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.

By: JIMV

JIMV — Thu, 06 May 2010 00:39:28 +0000

“EDITOR NOTE–Jim, gotta disagree on this one. From your perspective, it will make it easier than ever for the Dems to rule—most of the state legislatures are Dem alaready and a good R wouldn’t have a chance. Likewise, we had a history of R in Idaho, but for 24 years Frank Church served with honor as a Dem.”

BUT, the unfunded mandate would go away, the Senate would represent the state and not simply pander to the parties special interest and money sources (remember, they do not need the millions to get elected) and serve at the pleasure of the legislature, as the founders imagined. Today we have federalism with a broken wing as senators pander on a scale that makes even congressmen blush.

By: Sisyphus

Sisyphus — Wed, 05 May 2010 20:36:52 +0000

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.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 05 May 2010 14:42:11 +0000

Balance is the issue. You can have a red state in the National election but a Democrat Legislature or the opposite. Direct election keeps these rascals at least somewhat accountable to the people every 6th year they come up for reelection.

By: BoiseCitizen

BoiseCitizen — Wed, 05 May 2010 14:06:34 +0000

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!

By: JIMV

JIMV — Wed, 05 May 2010 02:10:35 +0000

Repealing the 17th amendment would return the states to a proper balance AND end the practice of the unfunded mandate, which did not exist before the change. Imagine of a Senator had to think about his state legislature before voting to impose a bill on them from Washington. A lot of bad legislatio would go away.

EDITOR NOTE–Jim, gotta disagree on this one. From your perspective, it will make it easier than ever for the Dems to rule—most of the state legislatures are Dem alaready and a good R wouldn’t have a chance. Likewise, we had a history of R in Idaho, but for 24 years Frank Church served with honor as a Dem.

By: Rod in SE Boise

Rod in SE Boise — Tue, 04 May 2010 20:45:32 +0000

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.