2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Prior to #17, two Senators were elected by vote of each state's legislature. Last I checked, the Goopers controlled 31 state legislatures, so x2 = 62 GOP Senators, which would be an effective super-majority in the Senate (and with 8 remaining states having split legislatures, it wouldn't be too difficult to get 4-6 more GOP Senators in there to get the 2/3 majority for veto overrides).

Flag is saying that would give Abbott half of what he wants, because presumably the R state legislatures would elect more of their own Tea Party loonies, and we'd get fewer of the establishment R careerists that the people tend to settle for at the federal level. Or, in the case of a nominally blue state like Michigan that currently has a state government controlled by a Republican corporate raider and his cronies, we wouldn't have Democrats like Stabenow or Peters in Washington.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

I saw this State of the Union address last night. I was watching the right channel, wasn't I?

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Prior to #17, two Senators were elected by vote of each state's legislature. Last I checked, the Goopers controlled 31 state legislatures, so x2 = 62 GOP Senators, which would be an effective super-majority in the Senate (and with 8 remaining states having split legislatures, it wouldn't be too difficult to get 4-6 more GOP Senators in there to get the 2/3 majority for veto overrides).

Flag is saying that would give Abbott half of what he wants, because presumably the R state legislatures would elect more of their own Tea Party loonies, and we'd get fewer of the establishment R careerists that the people tend to settle for at the federal level. Or, in the case of a nominally blue state like Michigan that currently has a state government controlled by a Republican corporate raider and his cronies, we wouldn't have Democrats like Stabenow or Peters in Washington.

Which is all the Republicans really want. The movement to repeal the 17th started to gain steam when the GOP started to dominate state legislatures. It's another voter suppression tactic -- they're losing the country and they are trying to cheat.

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

I saw this State of the Union address last night. I was watching the right channel, wasn't I?

The RNC convention isn't until June.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

The RNC convention isn't until June.

So that was the right channel for SotU.

[French Rage]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Which is all the Republicans really want. The movement to repeal the 17th started to gain steam when the GOP started to dominate state legislatures. It's another voter suppression tactic -- they're losing the country and they are trying to cheat.

It feels like all but 3 and 4 would need a full amendment, for which you'd need a hell of a lot more than just 60 Senators. Not that we seriously needed to consider what would be necessary to enact this guy's fevered dream ideas.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Which is all the Republicans really want. The movement to repeal the 17th started to gain steam when the GOP started to dominate state legislatures. It's another voter suppression tactic -- they're losing the country and they are trying to cheat.

And it's funny how you're pushing against it for effectively the same reasons. To get the real answers, flip the script. We already got that from the asses in 2009 (as I predicted), and we'll see the same thing from the ivories the next time GOP gets the presidency (and they will; remember that change and instability is good for the NWO).

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

And it's funny how you're pushing against it for effectively the same reasons.

Wrong. I'm against it because "the cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy" (Al Smith). Indirect election via state leg was corrupt and opaque. Direct election is a better reflection of the will of the people.

I favor getting rid of the Electoral College for the same reason, even though it would hurt my side.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Wrong. I'm against it because "the cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy" (Al Smith). Indirect election via state leg was corrupt and opaque. Direct election is a better reflection of the will of the people.

I favor getting rid of the Electoral College for the same reason, even though it would hurt my side.

The USA is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic, and it should very well remain as such. Ridding any sort of republican (and I don't mean GOP, I am speaking of the classic definition of the word) form of government results in the rise of oligarchs that create dictatorships. It is exactly what happened in Ancient Rome, and it will happen here if we change to a democracy.

[joecct]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Wrong. I'm against it because "the cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy" (Al Smith). Indirect election via state leg was corrupt and opaque. Direct election is a better reflection of the will of the people.

I favor getting rid of the Electoral College for the same reason, even though it would hurt my side.

And direct election of senators is above board and transparent? Remember, Senators are supposed to be the ambassadors from the State to the Federal Union (Hence "the Senator from _____" when he/she is recognized).

Maybe, just maybe, legislative appointment/election of senators would lead to greater turnover in state legislatures?

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

The USA is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic, and it should very well remain as such. Ridding any sort of republican (and I don't mean GOP, I am speaking of the classic definition of the word) form of government results in the rise of oligarchs that create dictatorships. It is exactly what happened in Ancient Rome, and it will happen here if we change to a democracy.

I didn't say "a democracy," I said "democracy." I am well aware that the United States is a republic. I believe in small d democratic tendencies to fix our problems, you believe in anti-democratic measures which is kinda funny coming from a guy worried about the NWO.

Also, you've got your Aristotle a little off. He says democracies are inherently unstable and they inevitably descend into anarchy, which is (after much destruction) ended by a tyrant -- a non-malicious term of art for someone who governs without being limited by the traditional rights and privileges of aristocracy. Aristotle and Plato were extremely keen to preserve the rights of the aristocracy, which in a world were the vast majority of citizens were barely above the level of wild beasts was probably a pretty good rule of thumb.

But we no longer play by 18th century rules, and with universal educations and something at least approaching equal rights an informed, democratic electorate with universal suffrage is now appropriate. The Founders had the wisdom to design a constitutional system that allows us to adapt to changing circumstances, and so successive waves of popular reform have taken us farther and farther from the theo-feudal state that conservatives lay awake at night beating off to. It would bother Aristotle (and Hamilton) no end, but we've moved on, and the vast majority of us are better for it. The Haves are sad but don't cry for them. It's still always sweet to be a Have.

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

And direct election of senators is above board and transparent? Remember, Senators are supposed to be the ambassadors from the State to the Federal Union (Hence "the Senator from _____" when he/she is recognized).

Maybe, just maybe, legislative appointment/election of senators would lead to greater turnover in state legislatures?

Part 2 makes no sense to me at all. If anything the bribery and chicanery would increase as donors could now buy their Senators wholesale via their purchase of legislators.

Part 1 seems to me to be a confusion of different ideas. Transparent and above board, yes -- elections are as good as one is going to get. Representative of the state I have no problem with at all -- I think direct election is a far better system for representing the state than indirect election. In the former each Senator is elected by the whole people of the state. In the latter a Senator is elected by people who were elected by members of a district of the state. The latter is where the impurity is introduced.