Does Alan Keyes REALLY want stop using popular vote for the Senate???

[JanMichael]

Said this on the CNN scrolling news at the bottom of the screen.

Is it true? Is this a Republican "flier" of an idea? Do they want to take the popular vote for Senators away?

Well, I suppose it wouldn't make much of a difference anyway since our government is "By the Rich For the Rich" but that'd wipe off some of the mass illusion of Democracy, wouldn't it?

[Vickers]

1. Yeah, he says now the state legislatures no longer have a say on federal

mmatters.

NO SHIT, SHERLOCK!

The US legislature deals with federal matters!

What a dumbass.

See, we're all too stupid to run our affairs, didn'tcha know?

:eyes:

[Cleita]

2. Wouldn't that be a House of Lords then?

I mean you would just hand your seat down to your heir. How undemocratic.

[Laura_B_manslaughter]

3. Democrats should pounce on this

Portray the repugs truthfully as elitists who don't want the little people to have a say in anything.

[codegreen]

4. Just Too Much Democracy for Alan Keyes

i can see the headlines now:
"Man Seeks Elected Office to End Practice of Electing Men to Office"
"Most Honest Fascist Dumbshit Ever"
"Man Earns Vote on Promise to Cancel Vote"
i sense an Onion article coming on...

[gatorboy]

5. I'm not surprised.

Wasn't it the Republicans who had urged the original term limit ban for Presidents when FDR become too popular for them?

[Vickers]

6. Yeah, and then they wanted it rescinded during Ronnie

and reiterated their support for the limit during Big Dog.

Flip floppers, the whole lot of 'em!

[TankLV]

26. Same w/the line item veto - when they couldn't conceive that Clinton would

win a second term.

THAT didn't take long to recind, did it?

(& yes I know it was a supreme court decision - a repuke one!)

[blackcat77]

7. That's the way it was originally in the constitution

But it was later changed by amendment. This has been an issue for the RadCons for a long time -- they see it as taking power away from the states. AFAIC, my senators represent ME, not my state, but they don't see it that way. Just more anti-federalist stuff that should have been resolved 150 years ago.

[Warpy]

8. The rich hate the idea of universal suffrage

and remember that this country was founded largely by the richer members of Colonial society, especially in the south. That's why only white male landowners could vote, and why both the electoral college and state lege election of senators was established. The were terrified of rule by the "rabble."

Since only the rich can afford to run for public office, I have no idea what these guys were and are so afraid of. I guess it's just humiliating for someone of their exalted class to have to depend on the type of people they wipe their feet on to vote for them.

I can see no other reason for Keyes's harangue, nor for keeping the anachronistic electoral college.

[LondonAmerican]

9. Actually I would support that

That's the system that was in place for years and that was the one real bulwark of federalism in our system (along with the electoral college). Since the change to direct election it's hard to see what the role of the states is, except as administrative units of the central government.

[Yupster]

10. It certainly was a major change

when the senators got elected.

Before that, the legislatures could pick statesmen who didn't have to or want to run for election. Guys like Steven Douglas, and Henry Clay.

Would that be better today?

Maybe we could get senators like Jimmy Carter, but I have a feeling that in today's celebrity society, we'd be more likely to get senators like Nolan Ryan and Barbra Streisand, so maybe we're better off having campaigns.

I don't think they realized what a dramatic turn they were making from the Constitutional balances when they passed this amendment though.

[salin]

11. Not sure I want to think about

who Arnie would twist arms in the lege to get seated in California...

[ISUGRADIA]

24. Statesmen? That's a rosy picture of history

For every statesman you site there were 20 political hacks who were put into place by the party in control of the legislature. Even Lincoln and Douglas campaigned for the Seats crisscrossing the State to get their party candidates elected. Look at the reasons the Progressives worked to pass the constitutional amendment. Legislature were basically bought to get Senate Seats and the positions were used to enrich private interests.

Granted, that is not too different than now, but giving this power only to the legislatures would be a reactionary action taking power away from the people. Legislative races would become even more expensive as private contributions from would be Senators would finance races.

[Dob Bole]

13. It would actually help us in the South

Every Southern state had two Democratic senators before the 70s, and most of them up until the late 80's.

But this would also mean more of a focus on Governorships, because whoever controlled them would control the Senate.

[tabasco]

15. We also had a king in place for several years.

Doesn't make it right. There is too much power in the Senate with 6-year terms to have anything other than direct representation. What difference does it make to federalism whether state legislatures or the people of a state elect the senator? None. The only difference is the people the senator must make happy to be elected.

[Yupster]

17. The idea was that since the states formed the union,

then the states would wield the most power.

The state legislatures would choose the senators.

The state legislatures would choose the electors who would choose the president.

Only the House of Representatives (The People's House)would be chosen by the voters.

State legislatures had enormous power under the Constitution. It's been so eroded today, that I even question whether it makes sense to even have states anymore.

[tabasco]

19. Still doesn't matter re: federalism.

How does it affect the position of the several states to the federal government whether senators are elected by the people of a state or the state legislators of a state? The state is simply selecting a senator through different means. The method of election does not affect the position of the state with respect to the federal government (federalism) in any way.

[salin]

12. Then why is he running for senate?

shouldn't he be going around campaigning to change the senate from direct election to appointment, instead?

The man is a loon. Keeps saying things that make him look sillier and sillier.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

14. this is really a libertarian concept.

I recall that eleswehere on line it was libertarians that seem to push this..they see it as a way to move from "mob rule"..ie increased democracy...and make representative govt less responsive to public opinion.

[Seeking Serenity]

16. DH wrote a paper in law school on why the 17th Amendment ...

was a wrong-headed idea. He said, among other things, that direct election of senators turned the most well-respected deliberative body in the world into a petty one-ring circus where partisanship trumps all as members play for the cameras trying to impress the voters back home.

All I could do was just shake my head.

[Yupster]

18. Who's DH?

n/t

[Eric J in MN]

22. DH=Dear Husband (nt)

nt

[Gore1FL]

20. Wha tis it with the GOP and Amending the Constitution

How many changess do the "consrvatives" want?

[FeebMaster]

21. It's more like unamending the constitution in this case. (nt)

[Eric J in MN]

23. Zell Miller also said that (nt)

nt

[BlackJack8324]

25. probably true

Many of the more strict Constitutionalists like Keyes want to return to the days when state legislatures chose Senators. If this were the case Keyes' chances of becoming Senator would increase dramatically. He'll never win the popular vote.