ALEC’s scary plan for electing your senators

[Belz...]

Under the Constitution, states determine how electors are chosen. This has never been repealed or amended. However, since the early 19th century, all states choose electors by popular vote. However, there is nothing in the Constitution or federal legislation that mandates that. There are a few sates that elect electors by district (Maine and Nebraska, IIRC). The rest are winner take all. There is a proposal floating around to implement direct popular election of the President by enacting state legislation (state constitutional amendments for most states) to award all of a state's electors to the winner of the national popular vote.

Though what's the point of checks and balances if all branches of government are elected from the same parties by the same pool of voters?

 

[Ziggurat]

The point of having states elect senators is to push more government power back to the states. Will it work? Maybe not, but it's not an unreasonable theory. Is it desirable to do so? Conservatives tend to think so, liberals tend not to. Is this issue some great anti-democratic conspiracy? No. It's just the same tension we've had since the beginning regarding the proper balance of power between different parts of government.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree the amendment is unlikely to be adopted. And I'm not surprised our resident right wingers all think it's a peachy idea.

If more states have GOP governors/legislators than Democrats, but many states with GOP governors/legislators elected Democratic Senators, how is it not taking away people's votes to let those GOP legislators appoint GOP Senators?

Republicans now dominate state government, with 32 legislatures and 33 governors

The electoral calendar also severely limited Democratic opportunities for gains because 38 states did not hold gubernatorial elections in 2016, and 34 governors in many big blue states like Illinois were last elected in the low-turnout 2014 midterm wave, which benefited Republicans immensely.

In addition, the cash heavy GOP, funded by such family fortunes as the Koch's, are able to pour big bucks into state elections.

One possible silver lining to the 2016 elections is that now, nearly every key governor’s race that matters for the next round of redistricting in 2020 will now be taking place under a potentially unpopular Trump administration. If 2018 follows the pattern of the last three midterm elections and unfolds as a backlash to the incumbent president’s party, Democrats could make major gubernatorial gains and be well-positioned to block many future Republican gerrymanders, giving them a fighting chance to win more seats in legislatures and in Congress in the coming decade.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is not absurd at all. It is actually the entire point of the Senate, that each state is represented equally. This was purposely designed to form one half of the Legislative Branch with the House, which does proportion representatives by population.

We understand the point of the Senate, and maybe it made sense in 1776. But balancing rural votes with urban votes is outmoded now and resulted in the US electing a seriously incompetent POTUS.

It would be one thing to give rural red states a small advantage to balance being outnumbered by populations in urban cities. But continuing to skew that imbalance even further is leading to the loss of our democracy.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Those state bozos are voted in by you too.

And those state bozos are heavily funded by a minority of rich John Birchers who only want to see their accumulation of wealth grow by letting the taxpayers cover their industry's pollution.

 

[acbytesla]

Salon (original article from Alternet): ALEC’s scary plan for electing your senators

The Nation: ALEC Is Talking About Changing the Way Senators Are Elected and Taking Away Your Vote

While I can't see a repeal of the 17th Amendment getting ratified, I didn't think Trump could get elected either.


This stuff is flying under the radar and that is an issue.

Not going to happen. It's a pipe dream. Far harder than Trump being elected.

Article Five of the United States Constitution detailed the two-step process for amending the nation's frame of government. Amendments must be properly Proposed and Ratified before becoming operative. This process was designed to strike a balance between the excesses of constant change and inflexibility.

An amendment may be proposed and sent to the states for ratification by either:
The United States Congress, whenever a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives deem it necessary;
OR
A national convention, called by Congress for this purpose, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds (currently 34) of the states.
To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either (as determined by Congress):
The legislatures of three-fourths (currently 38) of the states, within the stipulated time period—if any;
OR
State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (currently 38) of the states, within the stipulated time period—if any.
Upon being properly ratified, an amendment becomes an operative addition to the Constitution.
Approximately 11,539 proposals to amend the Constitution have been introduced in Congress since 1789 (as of December 2014).[2] Collectively, members of the House and Senate typically propose around 200 amendments during each two–year term of Congress.[3] Most however, never get out of the Congressional committees in which they were proposed, and only a fraction of those that do receive enough support to win Congressional approval to go through the constitutional ratification process. Beginning in the early 20th century, Congress has usually, but not always, stipulated that an amendment must be ratified by the required number of states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states in order to become part of the Constitution. Congress' authority to set ratification deadline was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939).

It is so damn hard to get an amendment passed let alone having one revoked. It also would go over with the public like a lead balloon. You're talking about telling the people they can't be trusted.

 

[BobTheCoward]

And those state bozos are heavily funded by a minority of rich John Birchers who only want to see their accumulation of wealth grow by letting the taxpayers cover their industry's pollution.

Then why do you vote for them?

 

[Cleon]

And those state bozos are heavily funded by a minority of rich John Birchers who only want to see their accumulation of wealth grow by letting the taxpayers cover their industry's pollution.

Also, gerrymandered to hell to ensure a GOP majority.

Can't gerrymander a Senate "district" if it's the whole state.

 

[Babbylonian]

The point of having states elect senators is to push more government power back to the states.

The states already do elect senators. So, no further constitutional amendments needed. Glad you agree. Welcome to the correct side.

 

[Ziggurat]

If more states have GOP governors/legislators than Democrats, but many states with GOP governors/legislators elected Democratic Senators, how is it not taking away people's votes to let those GOP legislators appoint GOP Senators?

Sure, it's taking away people's votes. Just like it's giving people a vote if they get to directly elect supreme court justices. Does that mean we should vote on everything? No, it actually doesn't. So saying that indirect elections for senators takes away a vote is technically true, but it doesn't actually address the merits of the proposal.

In addition, the cash heavy GOP, funded by such family fortunes as the Koch's, are able to pour big bucks into state elections.

I didn't see Democrats complaining about Ossoff outspending Handel by huge margins. I also didn't see that spending actually work. This complaint is typically hypocritical and overblown.

 

[acbytesla]

Sure, it's taking away people's votes. Just like it's giving people a vote if they get to directly elect supreme court justices. Does that mean we should vote on everything? No, it actually doesn't. So saying that indirect elections for senators takes away a vote is technically true, but it doesn't actually address the merits of the proposal.

What exactly are the merits of the proposal? That it is less democratic? That's a merit?

Hmmmm.

 

[BobTheCoward]

What exactly are the merits of the proposal? That it is less democratic? That's a merit?

Hmmmm.

I bet the answer is something along the lines of producing better results.

 

[Ziggurat]

What exactly are the merits of the proposal? That it is less democratic? That's a merit?

Hmmmm.

I already told you: it's intended to shift more power from the federal government to state governments. Some people view that as a merit. You are not required to, but you should have the intellectual honesty to at least recognize the goal.

 

[Allen773]

I love this idea that "states rights" is some sort of coherent and consistent principle rather than a political slogan created and utilized by a small number of wealthy elites to disenfranchise certain (*ahem*) people and thwart prospects for democracy in general. A slogan, moreover, that can be conveniently recycled or thrown away at a moment's notice for any given context, as the historical record demonstrates.

It's almost like they're afraid of what democracy might mean for what makes them "elite..."

 

[theprestige]

Also, gerrymandered to hell to ensure a GOP majority.

Can't gerrymander a Senate "district" if it's the whole state.

Sure can. You just have to do it yourself. Liberal voters gerrymandered themselves out of the presidency just last year.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

 

[theprestige]

What exactly are the merits of the proposal? That it is less democratic? That's a merit?

Hmmmm.

What are the merits of not letting people vote for Supreme Court justices?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

 

[Babbylonian]

I already told you: it's intended to shift more power from the federal government to state governments. Some people view that as a merit. You are not required to, but you should have the intellectual honesty to at least recognize the goal.

Since the federal government doesn't control who gets elected to the Senate (the citizens of each state do), what you're saying continues to make no sense.

 

[acbytesla]

The point of having states elect senators is to push more government power back to the states. Will it work? Maybe not, but it's not an unreasonable theory. Is it desirable to do so? Conservatives tend to think so, liberals tend not to. Is this issue some great anti-democratic conspiracy? No. It's just the same tension we've had since the beginning regarding the proper balance of power between different parts of government.

I don't really see how having state legislators elect Senators give the States any more power than they do right now.

That Conservatives have been waging a war against democracy for quite some time isn't really a secret. You could call it a conspiracy but that's just a word. It's simply a political strategy. They continue to wage a war against non-existent voter fraud purge voter roles, request voter IDs restrict student voters, purge voter rolls, etc.

God forbid the poor and disenfranchised vote. They might vote for more benefits for themselves and higher taxes on the rich. This is a genuine concern

 

[acbytesla]

What are the merits of not letting people vote for Supreme Court justices?

I don't know. What are they?

 

[acbytesla]

I already told you: it's intended to shift more power from the federal government to state governments. Some people view that as a merit. You are not required to, but you should have the intellectual honesty to at least recognize the goal.

It doesn't. It does shift power from the people in that state to that state's government.

It's not a merit. It's a power grab.