ALEC’s scary plan for electing your senators

[The_Animus]

IF elections at the state level were fair and competitive then I don't think it would be an issue. The people would choose their representatives and those representatives would choose senators.

But our elections often aren't fair, and one party very intentionally tries to make them unfair. Until we get rid of gerrymandering, mass voter purges, winner take all voting, and administrative shenanigans to make it hard to vote, this is nothing more than a power grab.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This isn't coming from the Republican party. And it's unlikely to get much support from the Republican party either.

It is coming from the party that writes their legislation for them.

 

[acbytesla]

I worry when some believe that power should be taken away from the people. There is a certain arrogance to that idea.

That's nice. But it doesn't address the argument, which is that the short-term whims of the electorate shouldn't determine everything. We don't vote on scientific conclusions, for instance, nor do we directly elect Supreme Court justices to represent their voters rather than the law.

That's why full democracy isn't a good idea. Not everything is a matter of public opinion. It does not follow that democracy isn't a good idea in a limited form (which is what most democracies in the world use). So I don't understand your comment above.

What's not to understand?

I worry about the motives of those who think that their own wisdom is superior to everyone else. I know full well that democracy is not perfect. For crying out loud, it was the majority of people that made George W. Bush and Trump President. Oh, wait a minute, the majority didn't elect either of them. The majority of Americans voted for Democrats for Congress and yet the Republican party controls the House.

So you'll excuse me if I'm just a little cynical of those that want to eliminate the voters from choosing their own Senators.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Not that I'd know how to fix it,

Proportional representation and/or ranked voting. Both of which came about after the formation of the US, so we can't really blame the Founders for not using them, but there are better systems.

Ranked voting in particular would vastly improve our current party process. Instead of each major party having to pander to extremists, the extremists could have their own parties, with their votes typically defaulting to the more moderate main party and not being wasted on niche candidates.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Well if you think rule of the majority is bad, what's left?

New Avatar? Cool.

Carving things out from the decision making process. The bill of rights is anti democratic.

 

[Belz...]

New Avatar? Cool.

Carving things out from the decision making process. The bill of rights is anti democratic.

I don't understand your response. If you think democracy is bad, what's the alternative if not rule of the minority?

 

[Belz...]

What's not to understand?

I worry about the motives of those who think that their own wisdom is superior to everyone else. I know full well that democracy is not perfect. For crying out loud, it was the majority of people that made George W. Bush and Trump President. Oh, wait a minute, the majority didn't elect either of them. The majority of Americans voted for Democrats for Congress and yet the Republican party controls the House.

So you'll excuse me if I'm just a little cynical of those that want to eliminate the voters from choosing their own Senators.

I'm not disagreeing with your cynicism about the people who want to make the change in the OP happen. I was simply puzzled that it was posted in response to my post.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I don't understand your response. If you think democracy is bad, what's the alternative if not rule of the minority?

Absence of government decision making.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I don't advocate minority rule.

Right, but for people sensible enough to know why society needs government, there are really only three basic choices -- monarchy, plutocracy, and democracy.

 

[lomiller]

New Avatar? Cool.

Carving things out from the decision making process. The bill of rights is anti democratic.

So you want to eliminate the majority AND the minority of the people governed? The government forms that takes decision making out of the hands of voters like Autocracy (rule by one person) and Oligarchy (rule by a small number of people) are even worse.

 

[lomiller]

Absence of government decision making.

So Anarchy? The problem is that even under Anarchy there are individual decision makers, so it’s really just a badly run Oligarchy.

 

[BobTheCoward]

So Anarchy? The problem is that even under Anarchy there are individual decision makers, so it’s really just a badly run Oligarchy.

And preferable to democracy.

 

[Belz...]

Absence of government decision making.

My mistake for assuming you were talking about reality rather than fiction.

 

[Belz...]

Right, but for people sensible enough to know why society needs government, there are really only three basic choices -- monarchy, plutocracy, and democracy.

It's not even necessary to point out that we need government. You can simply point out that government arises spontaneously from human societies, and thus that its absence is impossible.

And preferable to democracy.

For the oligarchs, sure.

 

[lomiller]

And preferable to democracy.

At what? In every known real world example Democracy > Oligarchy > Badly run Oligarchy (AKA Anarchy)

 

[lomiller]

For the oligarchs, sure.

Even the warlords in Somalia have it pretty bad by the standards of the non-criminality insane.

 

[Crossbow]

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.

The last time I heard this sort of nonsense was a about three years ago when a group of nuts wanted to form a Constitutional Convention in order to re-write the Constitution so that state senators would be produced by the various state legislatures (as was often done decades ago) as opposed to direct elections (as is done now).

The general idea is, that since most of the state legislators are Republican, then these legislators would increase the number of Republican Senators in Washington, D.C.

Anyway, I suppose these bat-crap crazy people have abandoned the Constitutional Convention idea because such a thing is just too hard to put together, so now they are discussing a new tactic in order to produce more Republican Senators since they cannot do so via direct elections.

 

[BobTheCoward]

My mistake for assuming you were talking about reality rather than fiction.

We all favor anti democratic measures to some extent. The first amendment carves something out from policy decision making by direct democracy and simple majority.

 

[Crossbow]

New Avatar? Cool.

Carving things out from the decision making process. The bill of rights is anti democratic.

So now the bill of rights is undemocratic!

Then it is no wonder that you insist that torture is constitutional.

 

[acbytesla]

We all favor anti democratic measures to some extent. The first amendment carves something out from policy decision making by direct democracy and simple majority.

What the hell are you talking about?

The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.