ALEC’s scary plan for electing your senators

[Ziggurat]

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.

It makes perfect sense, you just aren't familiar with it.

When senators are elected directly, what is their incentive regarding distribution of power? To consolidate it under the federal government. That gives themselves more power, and makes them more important to their voters, who are not generally very sensitive to the balance of power between federal and state levels. So they are likely to vote in favor of expanding federal power at the expense of state power.

When senators are elected by state government, then their incentives change in this regard. When they expand federal power at the expense of state power, they are taking power directly away from the very people who voted for them. Their constituents now ARE directly sensitive to the balance of power between federal and state levels, and are more likely to demand that senators concede more power to the states.

You can argue about how much difference this change in structural incentives will actually make in practice, but the concept is actually pretty straight forward, and if you haven't heard it before, then you've been ill-served by your sources of information.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then why do you vote for them?

Why did I vote for who?

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't know.

Exactly. You don't know. You're using your ignorance as an argument.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Exactly.

And as I said, I don't think a Constitutional Amendment can pass either, but I also don't want to underestimate ALEC.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why did I vote for who?

Seemed pretty obvious to whom he was referring:

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.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Seemed pretty obvious to whom he was referring:

Cherry pick much?

 

[acbytesla]

It makes perfect sense, you just aren't familiar with it.

When senators are elected directly, what is their incentive regarding distribution of power? To consolidate it under the federal government. That gives themselves more power, and makes them more important to their voters, who are not generally very sensitive to the balance of power between federal and state levels. So they are likely to vote in favor of expanding federal power at the expense of state power.

When senators are elected by state government, then their incentives change in this regard. When they expand federal power at the expense of state power, they are taking power directly away from the very people who voted for them. Their constituents now ARE directly sensitive to the balance of power between federal and state levels, and are more likely to demand that senators concede more power to the states.

You can argue about how much difference this change in structural incentives will actually make in practice, but the concept is actually pretty straight forward, and if you haven't heard it before, then you've been ill-served by your sources of information.

While that may be the argument. I don't buy it. It is much more likely a reflection that monied interests have been investing in state legislators and judge races resulting in Republicans controlling more state governments.

 

[Ziggurat]

Cherry pick much?

What are you even talking about? How could cherry picking possibly apply here? It cannot. Either I'm right or I'm wrong, but cherry picking isn't relevant, because there's no population of choices to statistically examine, there's just one right choice. Furthermore, in case this wasn't obvious, my post doesn't indicate agreement with Bob, but only what I think the correct reading of his posts is.

 

[acbytesla]

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

I don't know. What are they?

Exactly. You don't know. You're using your ignorance as an argument.

Why did you edit out the rest of my post?

Have you ever considered that the first part of the post is rhetorical and that since the prestige thought it was important point, perhaps he should explain?

 

[Babbylonian]

All arguments in favor of this idea are fundamentally anti-democracy. Period. The goal of the founders of this country wasn't to empower state governments. It was to empower people. The only reason this idea has traction is because Republicans can't convince "urban" voters.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It makes perfect sense, you just aren't familiar with it.

When senators are elected directly, what is their incentive regarding distribution of power? To consolidate it under the federal government. That gives themselves more power, and makes them more important to their voters, who are not generally very sensitive to the balance of power between federal and state levels. So they are likely to vote in favor of expanding federal power at the expense of state power.

And of course it so helpfully means all a greater percentage of voting can be gerrymandered, which is the real reason so many like this.

 

[Ziggurat]

While that may be the argument. I don't buy it. It is much more likely a reflection that monied interests have been investing in state legislators and judge races resulting in Republicans controlling more state governments.

By that same token, one could argue that opposition to repealing the 17th amendment isn't driven by any adherence to democratic principles, but is only the result of recent Democratic party collapse at the state level, driven by the failure of progressive policies.

But how about instead of accusing people over alleged motives, we discuss merits. And on that front, there are basically two questions

1) Would it shift power back to the states, or at least halt or slow the transfer of power to the federal government?

2) Is this a desirable outcome?

Question 2 is largely subjective. Question 1 is in principle objective, though our ability to know the correct answer is pretty limited.

But there's some reason to think it could work. The federal government certainly expanded its power and scope dramatically after the passage of the 17th amendment, and there's reason to believe it contributed to that expansion. But given the social changes since then, a repeal might not actually shift things back towards the states. The current balance may be too baked in now for much change. But for those who consider a shift back to the states to be desirable, it makes sense to try. For those who don't want a shift of power back to the states, that will suffice as motive to not repeal.

 

[Brainster]

While that may be the argument. I don't buy it. It is much more likely a reflection that monied interests have been investing in state legislators and judge races resulting in Republicans controlling more state governments.

Yes, it's much easier to buy into a vast right-wing conspiracy theory.

I'm not personally a big fan of the proposal, but I can understand the reasoning behind it. If senators are elected by their state legislatures, then they become more beholden to state legislators, who could quite easily take their job away if it is felt that they are not representing the state diligently enough. As things stand today, senators are more beholden to their national party.

The problem as I see it is that the system is open to corruption. It's relatively hard to buy your way into the Senate because you have to buy millions of votes. Under this proposal, you might only have to buy a few votes. Wikipedia notes that at least one senator was removed from office when it was discovered that he had bought votes in the Montana state legislature.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I'm torn. On one hand, I think it's a good idea. On the other, I'm not a huge fan of giving state legislatures more reason to gerrymander..

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What are you even talking about? How could cherry picking possibly apply here? It cannot. Either I'm right or I'm wrong, but cherry picking isn't relevant, because there's no population of choices to statistically examine, there's just one right choice. Furthermore, in case this wasn't obvious, my post doesn't indicate agreement with Bob, but only what I think the correct reading of his posts is.

Give it up, Zig. I didn't vote for anyone I described in that sentence and you cherry picked 'bozos' out of a sentence that also contained "funded by a minority of rich John Birchers" in the same description.

 

[Mikemcc]

Wasn't this 'Taxation without Representation' the reason you buggers still celebrate Treason Day on July 4th?

 

[ahhell]

I don't know. What are they?

In theory it insulates them from the whims of the people so they are free to rule based on the law and their conscience rather than for what will get them elected. Same goes for all sorts of positions, like central bankers and city managers for Cities with a manager system.

There is substantial evidence that lower court judges are more diverse in jurisdictions where judges are appointed vs elected as well.

 

[LSSBB]

Yes, it's much easier to buy into a vast right-wing conspiracy theory.

I'm not personally a big fan of the proposal, but I can understand the reasoning behind it. If senators are elected by their state legislatures, then they become more beholden to state legislators, who could quite easily take their job away if it is felt that they are not representing the state diligently enough. As things stand today, senators are more beholden to their national party.

The problem as I see it is that the system is open to corruption. It's relatively hard to buy your way into the Senate because you have to buy millions of votes. Under this proposal, you might only have to buy a few votes. Wikipedia notes that at least one senator was removed from office when it was discovered that he had bought votes in the Montana state legislature.

Yeah, that's just what I want here in Illinois - Mike Madigan determining who my senator is.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, it's much easier to buy into a vast right-wing conspiracy theory.

The only thing wrong in this sentence is the adjective "vast" modifies "right-wing". It should instead modify "wealth of the":

vast wealth of the right-wing conspiracy.

I'm not personally a big fan of the proposal, but I can understand the reasoning behind it. If senators are elected by their state legislatures, then they become more beholden to state legislators, who could quite easily take their job away if it is felt that they are not representing the state diligently enough. As things stand today, senators are more beholden to their national party.

I see the GOP framing forming here. Supposedly adding middlemen (state legislators) makes Senators more accountable than without said middlemen.

Typical right-wing twisted talking point. Did it come from the right-wing echo chamber or from ALEC directly?

The problem as I see it is that the system is open to corruption. It's relatively hard to buy your way into the Senate because you have to buy millions of votes. Under this proposal, you might only have to buy a few votes. Wikipedia notes that at least one senator was removed from office when it was discovered that he had bought votes in the Montana state legislature.

Like there is no corruption at the state level.

 

[Ziggurat]

Give it up, Zig. I didn't vote for anyone I described in that sentence and you cherry picked 'bozos' out of a sentence that also contained "funded by a minority of rich John Birchers" in the same description.

Pay attention. I am not saying Bob was right. I'm saying that's what he meant. Do you understand the difference?

No, you probably don't.