Posted: 3/1/2004 4:27:41 PM EDT
|
I've called my senators...but I always get the feeling that it really does no good. I really feel that my rep. is a good guy that really cares about what we think back here in east central Indiana; but I do not feel that way about Bayh and Luger. So many of them seem to be so out of touch with thier constitutients. I wonder if its due to the six year terms? I know that it seems like unseating an incumbent senator is one of the toughest task in politics. Is it time we go back and repeal the 17th amendment? Seriously, when our founders set up our Constitution, I think tehy wanted to be mindful of the fact states were properly represented in the federal government. Then in 1913 the wise idea was made that we needed to redefine the role of the senate. Thus allowing for direct election of the populace. The problem is now you have deeply entrenched politicans that seem unresponsive to the will of the people. While their term would have been as long before 1913, but at least they were serving a specif purpose then. |
|
You've hit it right on the head. I did a major research project on the 17th amendment while in Law School. Because of the change, the senators no longer represent the "states as states" (which was the case when they were selected by their state legislatures), but have become basically "proxies" for the national party system. I'd favor repealing the 17th Amendment. |
|
Concur. The system was set up with a specific idea in mind as to how it worked. In some ways kind of like the Electoral College balances against mob rule by a 50%+1 majority. By making the Senators directly elected by popular vote it's short circuited a major check & balance in the system, diluted States Rights and things have been going down hill ever since. |
|
I feel your pain with Daschle and Johnson (SD). Amazing what happens when dead Native Americans vote. That's the only way the Dems can control a western state with such conservative attitude. That's gonna change in November I hope! I will do my part to get Thune in office. |
|
Quoted: Personally I think only land owners should be able to vote. Losers living off the government wouldn't vote and it would encourage one of the main tenents of Capitalism. Land ownership. Edited to add that there is already too much farmland being paved over by suburban sprawl, this idea would do nothing but encourage even more people to move onto what used to be a productive cornfield. How much land would a person have to own? If I sell 5 square feet of lawn space to some homeless guy, can he vote? If I move out to AZ like I want to but live in an apartment out there for a few months between selling my home here and buying a new one out there, am I disenfranchised for that time? And since when is ownership of land a tenet of capitalism? Capitalism obviously allows people to buy whatever they are able to including land, but failure to go into a debt with a large mortgage hardly makes a person solcialist. |