4 ms·

>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 sen

>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.

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.