ALEC’s scary plan for electing your senators

Skeptic Ginger

Nasty Woman
Skeptic Ginger
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
96,955
Salon (original article from Alternet): ALEC’s scary plan for electing your senators
With so much news, however, perhaps the most shocking and consequential story of all slipped under the radar: A bombshell report in the Nation that the American Legislative Exchange Counsel (ALEC) — the most influential power behind conservative legislation marching through state legislatures — has drafted a proposal to return the power to select U.S. senators to state legislators.

That’s right: ALEC’s “model legislation” would repeal the 17th amendment, end more than a century of American citizens electing U.S. senators at the ballot box, and empower gerrymandered legislatures to choose senators for us, as was the practice in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Click to expand...

The Nation: ALEC Is Talking About Changing the Way Senators Are Elected and Taking Away Your Vote
The United States Senate is an undemocratic institution. Just do the math: Progressive California Senator Kamala Harris was elected in 2016 with 7,542,753 votes. Yet her vote on issues such as health-care reform counts for no more than that of conservative Wyoming Senator Mike Enzi, who was elected in 2014 with 121,554 votes.

This is an absurd imbalance. In fact, the only thing that would make it more absurd would be if voters were removed from the equation altogether.

Say “hello” to the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, the corporate-funded project to impose a top-down right-wing agenda on the states. ALEC is considering whether to adopt a new piece of “model legislation” that proposes to do away with an elected Senate.
Click to expand...

While I can't see a repeal of the 17th Amendment getting ratified, I didn't think Trump could get elected either.
The John Birch Society peddled the proposal decades ago. But with the rise of the “Tea Party” movement, the notion moved into the conservative mainstream.

Then–Texas Governor Rick Perry argued in 2012 that the direct election of senators “took the states out of the process.” Several Republican senators apparently agree, with Utah Senator Mike Lee referring to the 17th Amendment as “a mistake” and Arizona Senator Jeff Flake saying, “I think it’s better as it reinforces the notion of federalism to have senators appointed by state legislatures.” What was once a fringe fantasy is being taken ever more seriously by conservative strategists.
Click to expand...

This stuff is flying under the radar and that is an issue.
 
The imbalance mentioned has nothing to do with "taking away your vote" to vote for your own senators. It's the same imbalance either way.

And that imbalance is where states do have their say, with each sitting at the Round Table as equals. We are not one gigantic nation with little anachronistic fictions called "states". The feds are a creation of the states, and the people through their states.


They just want more senators from their party. The same reason Democrats are in favor of giving DC or Puerto Rico statehood. Neither are some grand statesmen with powdered wigs on awaiting their paintings.
 
Gerrymandering is not a problem. If it is by political affiliation, all you have to do is convince people of the opposite affiliation to vote for you.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Gerrymandering is not a problem. If it is by political affiliation, all you have to do is convince people of the opposite affiliation to vote for you.
Click to expand...

That's a bit like saying that it's not a problem that an opposing football (soccer) team is given a 3-0 start, all you have to do is to score 4 more goals than they do. :rolleyes:
 
The Don said:
That's a bit like saying that it's not a problem that an opposing football (soccer) team is given a 3-0 start, all you have to do is to score 4 more goals than they do. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Correct. It isnt a problem. And if you don't think you can do that, why bother?
 
Repealing the 17th amendment would make it a lot harder from someone like trump to get elected.
 
Reducing direct democracy is the Republican answer to fewer people voting Republican.
 
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
Click to expand...
I'm probably wrong. I though it also changed the way electors were chosen as well as senators. It doesn't really.

in the beginning, electors were chosen by the state governments rather than by elections as the are now. So, less democracy means less opportunity for demagogues to sucker the people. Its more elitist but it probably would have prevented trump. Elector's appointed by the state government would almost certainly be less beholden to the popular will of the party's voters.
 
ahhell said:
I'm probably wrong. I though it also changed the way electors were chosen as well as senators. It doesn't really.

in the beginning, electors were chosen by the state governments rather than by elections as the are now. So, less democracy means less opportunity for demagogues to sucker the people. Its more elitist but it probably would have prevented trump. Elector's appointed by the state government would almost certainly be less beholden to the popular will of the party's voters.
Click to expand...

All of which, as you note, has nothing to do with this thread. There's already another active thread to talk about the electoral college.
 
This isn't new, like the FairTax this has been a regular talking point of the Libertarian Right for a few years now.

However, my response is simple: if you're going to take away my right to vote for someone, I'm going to need a damn good reason as to why. "To give the corrupt, incompetent, lying bozos who run the state government greater control over the Federal government" is not a good reason.
 
The United States Senate is an undemocratic institution. Just do the math: Progressive California Senator Kamala Harris was elected in 2016 with 7,542,753 votes. Yet her vote on issues such as health-care reform counts for no more than that of conservative Wyoming Senator Mike Enzi, who was elected in 2014 with 121,554 votes.

This is an absurd imbalance.
Click to expand...

This is not absurd at all. It is actually the entire point of the Senate, that each state is represented equally. This was purposely designed to form one half of the Legislative Branch with the House, which does proportion representatives by population.
 
Cleon said:
This isn't new, like the FairTax this has been a regular talking point of the Libertarian Right for a few years now.

However, my response is simple: if you're going to take away my right to vote for someone, I'm going to need a damn good reason as to why. "To give the corrupt, incompetent, lying bozos who run the state government greater control over the Federal government" is not a good reason.
Click to expand...

Those state bozos are voted in by you too.
 
ahhell said:
I'm probably wrong. I though it also changed the way electors were chosen as well as senators. It doesn't really.

in the beginning, electors were chosen by the state governments rather than by elections as the are now. So, less democracy means less opportunity for demagogues to sucker the people. Its more elitist but it probably would have prevented trump. Elector's appointed by the state government would almost certainly be less beholden to the popular will of the party's voters.
Click to expand...

Under the Constitution, states determine how electors are chosen. This has never been repealed or amended. However, since the early 19th century, all states choose electors by popular vote. However, there is nothing in the Constitution or federal legislation that mandates that. There are a few sates that elect electors by district (Maine and Nebraska, IIRC). The rest are winner take all. There is a proposal floating around to implement direct popular election of the President by enacting state legislation (state constitutional amendments for most states) to award all of a state's electors to the winner of the national popular vote.
 
Cleon said:
This isn't new, like the FairTax this has been a regular talking point of the Libertarian Right for a few years now.

However, my response is simple: if you're going to take away my right to vote for someone, I'm going to need a damn good reason as to why. "To give the corrupt, incompetent, lying bozos who run the state government greater control over the Federal government" is not a good reason.
Click to expand...

What do you want the Senate to do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom