Extremist tea partiers want to overturn 17th amendment so rich white men can rule america

This isn't something to address suitability, it's something to address the power of the state legislature to set a federal agenda. It's a power play, nothing more.

 

It's some dumbass Paulista thing.

He has conducted scientific studies on this. He is a scientist. And while you're at it, get rid of 14-15-16 as well. If you want to sell yourself into servitude it's your right.

 

Conservative hate democracy. They know that the wealthy are a minority and they are afraid that Abraham Lincoln was right-- "you can't fool all the people all the time".

Hence voter ID laws designed to restrict voting. Voting primarily during working hours. As little as possible early or absentee voting. etc. Unlimited money spent by a wealthy minority during elections to try to fool most of the people all the time.

 

Problem is that Tea Party has realize that when ever citizen gets an equal vote, they lose. They want power, so this is a way to get it. Just goes to show that it's important to have a strong system to prevent groups like the Tea Party from usurping power and undermining the republic.

Race is definitely an issue. Frankly, I am glad the ignorant and racist of America has a party they can all come together on. The utter stupidity of these people, who were disappointed our country did not default on its debt today - is incredible. It's much better they group together into one party that we can all contain.

My hope is that 3 end up with a 3 party system. The nutbags can have their Tea Party. moderate Republicans and conservative Dems could form their own in the middle. It would end all the gridlock and drama in Congress.

 

If you think about it, what exactly would be different for Texas right if the 17th had been repealed? Seems to me Cornyn and Cruz would be the choices of a crazy-ass state legislature...like in Texas.

 

As power is restricted to the few, you increases your chance to maintain power. The 2 party system is a good example... too much head wind to form a viable 3rd party as power is concentrated in those 2 parties and they will not give those up. Repealing the 17th amendment move power away from the people of the state to the few, the powerful, the establishment. This isn't for state right, this is for the right of the established politicians and reduces the right of the people.

The Tea Party is just weird. Against establishment. Is supposedly grass-root org. And here they are arguing against grass-root and for establishment. They have been bought? Been fooled? WTH?

Does any Tea Party supporter here care to explain and argue their position?

 

Groups like the Tea Party have been successful winning local elections with low turnout to take control of many state legislatures. This is why so many districts have been redistricted to protect extremely conservative candidates and also why groups like ALEC have pushed conservative agendas through many state legislatures while failing on the federal level. This policy doesn't work well in statewide elections with more diverse electorates but if the state legislature were to choose the Senators then that increases the power of that strategy.

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/OOVwXtgcEyM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Napolitano goes into it a bit here.

I don't really have a horse in the race here, but if you're wondering what the argument is against the 17th amendment, here's an example of one.

 

I actually clicked and listened and other than saying that the 17th amendment is teh wrong and invoking the 12-inch dongs of the Founders and their wishes and an unsupported assertion that "the states would be better represented", I didn't see/hear anything here that lays out a substantive case at all.

If anything, most "states" in terms of state governments' makeups are actually more homogenous han their populations and that they'd jsut "be better" at representing "the states" with no explanation as to how you get from A to B is a pretty terrible argument.

I mean, the $ assumption here is that the states will = that of its sovereign/governor/legislature more so than it's electorate. A cynic (and far be it from me to be deemed that) may draw the implication that he wants an even-more republican demographic skewing minority to influence the result of the senate's composition.

 

I am tempted to say let the nutters do their little weird things. who cares.

However, if the Kochs and few cranky billionaires can put enough money behind this idea, for a long enough time, the next thing you will be hearing about it like it is something that not a few few elitists want.

I think the little folks inputting Fox/ right wing media all day can be fooled into believing almost anything if they hear it often enough

It will be interesting to see if Rush and Hannity and O'Reilly jump in.

 

Oh lawlz.

We've GOT a third party, guys. One that has the support about 10-15% of the populace, which frankly would be the norm for any third party, as a three party system would not result in a 33-33-33 system. But because they have a viewpoint that's different from yours, they're not a REAL third party.

People like you shriek for democracy, democracy, more democracy - and you continue on your crusade even when the people with their democracy turn right around and elect bat**** lunatics like the Tea Party. But, as Marx observes, the petit-bourgeois democrat continues on his merry way, proclaiming that those results that went against his forecast are always the fault of some evil minority, and not the "people" that he purports to represent, including the lumpenproletariat who by and large make up the Tea Party.

 

lol. If you don't think rich white men rule the country now I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you

 

Viable 3rd party. One that can, on its own, win the presidency, win enough in the house or senate that can stand on its own. As soon as the Tea Party is separated from the Republican party, they loses all their power at the national level. There is no viable 3rd party.

I don't understand your 2nd paragraph.

 

mmmmm...bing sha.

 

I actually agree. What's the point in having two chambers in Congress if they're both popularly elected? Seems like the only difference is how much it costs to win the seat. As for how they're chosen, that's an entirely different argument.

 

If you had a 3rd party with that much clout, you'd lose one of the other parties. To get to the level you're asking, you have to legitimately be able to get 40-45% of the vote. There can't be 3 parties that can consistently do that due to math.

 

The reason is because one represents the whole state and can't have gerrymandered districts while the other represents only one particular part of that state and will almost certainly have gerrymandered districts.

 

No, I can safely say that the wost thing to happen to American politics has been cable news.

 

Let me get this straight.

The group of people who worry about a totalitarian state, Obama as dictator, and so forth... wants to now take away the people's right to elect *half* of Congress (aka a huge part of the possibly evil at some point "federal government").

Holy crap, people. You are unhappy with the senate -- we get it. So put together candidates and (sane) positions that can better win state-wide elections.

The tunnel-vision of continually trying to change little things that are *currently* not supporting your monolithic viewpoint is astounding. It's like burning pieces of furniture because you're cold.

 

Republicans and Democrats pretty much have the system Gerrymandered. I mean, you're electing some self-righteous jerk with money to burn and who is seeking power and who is thoroughly vetted by either the Republicans or Democrats (so you know they won't be a threat to make any real change).

Gerrymandering aside, the point of having two chambers of Congress is to put a check on the Democratic characteristics of the federal government. The House is a check on the Senate and the Senate a check on the House. That's why I'm of the opinion that States should individually decide how to select their representatives. I'd prefer that they be selected at random from the adult population of the state, but I'm most assuredly in the minority there. Others may prefer an election, or an appointment with or without checks by the State government, but the point is for Congress to have two distinct chambers.