7 ms·

What the Founders Feared About Impeachment

25 points by aazaa 7y ago

creaghpatr 7y ago
>There were reasons the Founders at first hoped that senators might be more independent-minded. It wasn't until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913 that senators were directly elected by the people. >Now, in a hyperpartisan environment, reelection could often be the motivating factor, with little incentive to cross sides. Oh no, thanks to democratic elections of senators, senators risk their voting decisions being scrutinized by their constituents...yikes!
- robbrown451 7y ago
  Democratic elections and hyperpartisanship are not one and the same. The problem is when representatives have more allegiance to their party than to their constituents. That's a long term side effect of plurality voting (which forces everyone into two opposing sides, lest they lose due to vote splitting). It's also very solvable, such as with Approval voting [1] that is not subject to vote splitting and tends to elect the first choice of the hypothetical median voter. 1. now in Fargo ND! :)
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > Oh no, thanks to democratic elections of senators, senators risk their voting decisions being scrutinized by their constituents...yikes! More democracy more directly is not a salve that cures all problems. Election of judges is pretty crazy, for instance. IIRC, senators were originally appointed by state legislatures, and were understood to be representatives of the sovereign state governments themselves. Sort of like how the US government sends a representative to the UN rather than having the people elect one.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  If we trust the constituents enough, why not just have them vote directly on laws and get rid of the representatives entirely? Back in the 1700s there were physical limitations that required representatives, but those are no longer a major factor.
  - ci5er 7y ago
    There is a long and storied reason (going back to the greek city-states) about why direct democracy is a really bad idea.
    - SkyBelow 7y ago
      In which case, perhaps some of that reasoning applies to having the representative's actions scrutinized to the level they currently are.
- tropo 7y ago
  For causing harm to the nation, direct election of senators is second only to the commerce clause abuse. (and both are of questionable constitutionality) Senators appointed by state legislatures could be counted on to oppose any attempt by the federal government to harm the states. Today we have huge problems with unfunded mandates and with funding being used to coerce states into making state law. Example: states don't get highway funds unless they make the drinking age at least 21 That kind of stuff is all over our law. With senators being chosen by the states, it wouldn't happen so much. BTW, regarding the constitutionality: our constitution prohibits a state from losing representation except by consent, but not all states ratified the 17th Amendment.
homonculus1 7y ago
Originalism? In my NPR?? Hamilton is a delight, if I had a genie lamp in front of me I'd have the media quote him in relation to every topic of national controversy.
- happytoexplain 7y ago
  You find their content usually derivative? Edit: I suddenly realized maybe "originalism" isn't some obscure synonym for "originality". My bad :)
  - smacktoward 7y ago
    Yep, in this context "originalism" refers to the philosophy that the way to answer Constitutional questions is to try to divine the original intent of the Founders who wrote it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism for more details. The opposite of originalism is the "living document" philosophy (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution), which argues that the meaning of the document has to be interpreted by each generation in the light of their own experience.
robbrown451 7y ago
Partisanship is the problem, (something the founders considered but didn't fully grasp) and it could be ~90% solved by instituting a voting system that tends to elect the first choice of the median voter. As it is, we have plurality elections for electing representatives as well as the president, and by their nature candidates must cluster into parties to avoid losing due to vote splitting. That's where most of our partisanship comes from. A lot of people point to ranked choice voting to solve this, but it really isn't a lot better than plurality. Approval voting does way better, and it finally has been put into practice in local elections (in Fargo ND), and is being considered for a big city (St. Louis MO). It's a shame more people don't see this for the mathematical problem that it is, since it is relatively easy to solve.
- kgwxd 7y ago
  What would it take to make any change in the way elections currently work at the federal level?
  - robbrown451 7y ago
    I believe it is up to the states how they elect representatives. It's a little harder with the presidency, because of the electoral college (a state may be at a disadvantage if they used approval while other states use plurality...it does not good to pick a middle ground candidate if they can't actually win). However, changing the way we elect representatives/senators would go a long way. https://www.electionscience.org/ces-updates/making-approval-voting-a-reality-in-us-elections/ https://www.electionscience.org/ces-updates/making-approval-...
- smacktoward 7y ago
  It's not so much that the Founders didn't grasp partisanship as it was that they thought it incompatible with republican government. Their conception of "good government" was a society governed by an aristocratic class of landed gentry, whose wealth would (in theory) make them immune to temptations like bribery and self-dealing. Ordinary people couldn't be trusted with their own government, because they would too easily succumb to those same temptations. In practice, of course, that theory broke down almost immediately. Political parties started coalescing around Hamilton and Jefferson practically before the ink on the Constitution had dried, and the gentry whose disinterestedness the Founders had placed so much trust in turned out to be just as flawed and venal as everybody else. If you're interested in why the Founders thought the way they did and the process of how reality broke their worldview in half, I can't recommend Gordon Wood's book The Radicalism of the American Revolution (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6956.The_Radicalism_of_the_American_Revolution https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6956.The_Radicalism_of_t...) highly enough. It's a great read that will change the way you look at the Revolution and the early republic.

25 points by aazaa 7y ago

>There were reasons the Founders at first hoped that senators might be more independent-minded. It wasn't until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913 that senators were directly elected by the people. >Now, in a hyperpartisan environment, reelection could often be the motivating factor, with little incentive to cross sides. Oh no, thanks to democratic elections of senators, senators risk their voting decisions being scrutinized by their constituents...yikes!

robbrown451 7y ago
Democratic elections and hyperpartisanship are not one and the same. The problem is when representatives have more allegiance to their party than to their constituents. That's a long term side effect of plurality voting (which forces everyone into two opposing sides, lest they lose due to vote splitting). It's also very solvable, such as with Approval voting [1] that is not subject to vote splitting and tends to elect the first choice of the hypothetical median voter. 1. now in Fargo ND! :)
CharlesColeman 7y ago
> Oh no, thanks to democratic elections of senators, senators risk their voting decisions being scrutinized by their constituents...yikes! More democracy more directly is not a salve that cures all problems. Election of judges is pretty crazy, for instance. IIRC, senators were originally appointed by state legislatures, and were understood to be representatives of the sovereign state governments themselves. Sort of like how the US government sends a representative to the UN rather than having the people elect one.
SkyBelow 7y ago
If we trust the constituents enough, why not just have them vote directly on laws and get rid of the representatives entirely? Back in the 1700s there were physical limitations that required representatives, but those are no longer a major factor.
- ci5er 7y ago
  There is a long and storied reason (going back to the greek city-states) about why direct democracy is a really bad idea.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    In which case, perhaps some of that reasoning applies to having the representative's actions scrutinized to the level they currently are.
tropo 7y ago
For causing harm to the nation, direct election of senators is second only to the commerce clause abuse. (and both are of questionable constitutionality) Senators appointed by state legislatures could be counted on to oppose any attempt by the federal government to harm the states. Today we have huge problems with unfunded mandates and with funding being used to coerce states into making state law. Example: states don't get highway funds unless they make the drinking age at least 21 That kind of stuff is all over our law. With senators being chosen by the states, it wouldn't happen so much. BTW, regarding the constitutionality: our constitution prohibits a state from losing representation except by consent, but not all states ratified the 17th Amendment.

homonculus1 7y ago

Originalism? In my NPR?? Hamilton is a delight, if I had a genie lamp in front of me I'd have the media quote him in relation to every topic of national controversy.

happytoexplain 7y ago
You find their content usually derivative? Edit: I suddenly realized maybe "originalism" isn't some obscure synonym for "originality". My bad :)
- smacktoward 7y ago
  Yep, in this context "originalism" refers to the philosophy that the way to answer Constitutional questions is to try to divine the original intent of the Founders who wrote it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism for more details. The opposite of originalism is the "living document" philosophy (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution), which argues that the meaning of the document has to be interpreted by each generation in the light of their own experience.

robbrown451 7y ago

Partisanship is the problem, (something the founders considered but didn't fully grasp) and it could be ~90% solved by instituting a voting system that tends to elect the first choice of the median voter. As it is, we have plurality elections for electing representatives as well as the president, and by their nature candidates must cluster into parties to avoid losing due to vote splitting. That's where most of our partisanship comes from. A lot of people point to ranked choice voting to solve this, but it really isn't a lot better than plurality. Approval voting does way better, and it finally has been put into practice in local elections (in Fargo ND), and is being considered for a big city (St. Louis MO). It's a shame more people don't see this for the mathematical problem that it is, since it is relatively easy to solve.

kgwxd 7y ago
What would it take to make any change in the way elections currently work at the federal level?
- robbrown451 7y ago
  I believe it is up to the states how they elect representatives. It's a little harder with the presidency, because of the electoral college (a state may be at a disadvantage if they used approval while other states use plurality...it does not good to pick a middle ground candidate if they can't actually win). However, changing the way we elect representatives/senators would go a long way. https://www.electionscience.org/ces-updates/making-approval-voting-a-reality-in-us-elections/ https://www.electionscience.org/ces-updates/making-approval-...
smacktoward 7y ago
It's not so much that the Founders didn't grasp partisanship as it was that they thought it incompatible with republican government. Their conception of "good government" was a society governed by an aristocratic class of landed gentry, whose wealth would (in theory) make them immune to temptations like bribery and self-dealing. Ordinary people couldn't be trusted with their own government, because they would too easily succumb to those same temptations. In practice, of course, that theory broke down almost immediately. Political parties started coalescing around Hamilton and Jefferson practically before the ink on the Constitution had dried, and the gentry whose disinterestedness the Founders had placed so much trust in turned out to be just as flawed and venal as everybody else. If you're interested in why the Founders thought the way they did and the process of how reality broke their worldview in half, I can't recommend Gordon Wood's book The Radicalism of the American Revolution (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6956.The_Radicalism_of_the_American_Revolution https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6956.The_Radicalism_of_t...) highly enough. It's a great read that will change the way you look at the Revolution and the early republic.