The 17th Amendment stripped the individual states of having a say in national legislative matters. The Great Compromise came about during the constitutional convention because states were concerned that they would lose power to a centralized federal entity. To alleviate these fears the compromise was struck that we were to have a senate consisting of 2 senators for each state CHOSEN IN A MANNER DECIDED BY THAT STATE in order to balance the power more effectively; the house was to be chosen by the people of a district within a stateā¦ to represent the peoples interest within the federal construct at the grass roots level. ā¦the peoples house. The Senate was to be chosen by the state to represent state interests within the federal construct at the state level.
The Senate as it is constituted today is superfluousā¦ thereās already a body chosen by the people and the state now really has no voice unless they sue through the AG and court system.
Undo the 17th Amendment and go back to the originalist form we had prior to 1913.
-Andrew Calverase
Iām okay with this as long as state legislature dissolve their state upper house, and go with a single house legislature.
Why?
EDIT: Post edited because people kept making the mistake of thinking I was asking āWhy?ā of the original proposal rather than someone elseās comment.
Tell me more Sirā¦
I donāt see a point for state legislatures to have bicameral legislatures. You see the point of bicameral legislatures is that the two house are intended to represent different constituencies in which both houses compromise with each other to find consensus. But for the state level such as my home state of California, I see no point in having a two house legislature in California because both the state senate and state assembly represent the people with one house being the state senate representing a district with more people than the other. I think this makes state government inefficient and waste taxpayer money. I believe we should be making government more efficient so that it can do the work to govern the people which is thus why I support a single house legislature in California.
I do like where you took this;
The feds need two houses because one is of the people the other is for the states (or at least it WAS)ā¦
Nowā¦ what two (or more) constituents would a state government need to represent?
or is the rationale we need two voting entities to āslow things downā¦ cool them offā as someone said about the fed senate?
I really cant think of a good reasonā¦
Im gonna dig moreā¦ if you have the bandwidth or desire dig into Calis founding documents to find a reasonā¦
Ill dig into Virginias and see if they laid out any arguments.
There has to be some sort of a justification as I beleive the states governments (founding) pre-date the fed govā¦
Very very interesting!
-Andrew Calverase
Ya know I could see if a state decided to have two entities if one body was for the localities the other for counties or parishās ā¦ but Ive seen no state that divvies up that way.
Most senate districts (at least in VA) includes bits and pieces of several counties and that district has no central rep to coordinate with like a fed senator has with his governor/ assembly/ senate.
If a shift occurred whereby a states internal lines were drawn along already established governing bodies like a county board/ commissioner that had a senate rep at the state level ā¦and localities within a county being represented by an assembly at the state levelā¦ maybe then we could justify having two chambersā¦ but as it stands now two bodies is one too many.
agreed
-Andrew Calverase
The form of Federalism set up on the Constitution made sure the states were represented well by the Senators. By the Senators being selected by the legislatures they were being chosen by those closest to the voters and if a Senator operated against the Stateās well being they could be recalled. Laws by Congress can put mandatory spending on the States, I believe up to 40% of the state budgets. Think medicaid: would a Senator controlled by the legislators pass a medicaid bill that was to be funded by the State without getting approval from the State?
Sorry, I think there was a mistake in communication, I wasnāt intending to ask you why - I actually support Repealing the 17th Amendment and voted for this proposal.
Hereās who I was actually replying to.
In fact, if you look at Matthew Tangonanās post, youāll see itās one of the comments listed under āRepliesā.
I suppose I should have quoted his post rather than just leave it as an open question.
Repealing 17A allows for States to become defenders of their voters as they can recall senators for corruption.
It also means that States can rally in such a way we would normally have to do through a separate org. such as PETA, or NRA, for example Iowa could take steps to protects farmers without those farmers needing to join a lobbying force which only does 40% of what they say, while screwing them over on other issues.
As previously noted:
No Sirā¦ I understood you were asking why someone would want to eliminate state senator positions. Its why I asked for more info as I can see where he was headedā¦ I got ya!
I agree. That one has been on my list, right on top.
Right, but two other commenter explained the value of repealing the 17th amendment in a way that suggested I was asking āWhy repeal the 17th Amendmentā so I wanted to ensure I didnāt keep having people try to explain something to me that I already know.
If you use two different methods of election, you can get two different types of constituencies. Hereās my proposal for such a system at the state level:
The lower houses of states should switch to a proportional caucus system. You would vote for a local delegate in your district, and the delegates would carry a proportional vote to a legislative convention, where they can group up with like-minded delegates to elect the actual representatives. The advantage is itās easier for common interests throughout the state that donāt align with districts to coordinate.
Upper chambers would retain the same direct district structure. But Iād recommend using Approval voting in their election, to encourage them to make broader appeals to their whole district.
The result is each chamber provides a distinct picture of the people. The lower chamber is a detailed picture of the peopleās most pressing concerns, while the upper chamber is a detailed picture of the people by region. If these two different perspectives can agree on a course of action, that is a strong case for consensus.
I like this a whole lot!
Have you submitted a detailed proposal elsewhere that we could vote on?
I also would like to note that this platform seems to be directed at changes in policy / law at the federal level; any idea how we would inject good ideas (like this) at the state level FROM this platform without reinventing the wheel?
Thanks! I expanded on the proportional caucus system with this post. If I touch on the concept of different methods for different chambers, it will be much simpler.
I think that depends how the election goes next week. Otherwise this platform just becomes irrelevant. But assuming things go well, Iād want this platform expanded to accommodate state level discussion.
Iād also point out federal law can sway state law, and visa versa. My proposal could easily be adapted to elect US Congressmen. The trouble is, Congress currently has an active law preventing it: The Uniform Congressional District Act. If they passed an appropriate amendment, the states would be freed up to experiment more.
Why not replicate the Senate/House system, and have state legislatures with representatives from the County government?
This would be necessary, I think, to handle administrative issues that are not apparent to the populace. Things like water rights.
What corporate board, city council, or board of supervisors has a two house legislature? None have one because it is not a good way to run a government or even a company. I believe that in a democracy we should just have a one house legislature representing everyone. The state governments are the ones that have authority over the county because they established their municipal governments being their board of supervisors. I think a one house legislature would make the governments more effective at getting things done and doing the work on the behalf of the people. As well, you will still have checks and balances because people can still vote for their elected officials, petition their government, the state court system can hold the legislature to account and the governor would also.
Yes, we need to go back to the Constitutionsl voting process. The people were never given the right to vote directly for the president either. We have the right to directly vote for our district house representative and elector whom we trust to vote for the president. The elector is not to be told who to cast their vote for, the constitution gave them a right to choose who they believe to be the best candidate. These processes were meant to help minimize voting corruption. The larger and broader the base of an election the harder it is to control corruption. The writers of the constitution understood this.