A way to limit lobbyist, and shake up the Senate

[Cutlass]

How does repealing the 17th Amendment make the Senate more corrupt?

If you look at the history of the Senate in the couple of decades before the 17th Amendment was ratified, the Senate sucked. Senators were political appointees. And those appointing them had agendas often not relating to running the Federal Government. It's a lot easier to buy a senator when you only have to convince a couple of local pols, and not the voters of a whole state.

 

[Tahuti]

How does making the Senate more [able to] solve anything?

The 17th amendment caused the Senate to be directly elected and repealing it would mean the legislatures would elect the Senators. The idea is, that it will make the Senate less susceptible to popular opinion.

 

[G-Max]

the Senate sucked. Senators were political appointees. And those appointing them had agendas often not relating to running the Federal Government.

Well, I sure am glad THAT'S no longer the case

The 17th amendment caused the Senate to be directly elected and repealing it would mean the legislatures would elect the Senators. The idea is, that it will make the Senate less susceptible to popular opinion.

The idea is that the state legislatures would be able to prevent the Federal government from becoming a giant tumor that crushes both state and individual rights under its unimaginable weight.

 

[Tahuti]

The idea is that the state legislatures would be able to prevent the Federal government from becoming a giant tumor that crushes both state and individual rights under its unimaginable weight.

Yes, but wasn't that caused by popular demand for "big gov't" anyway?

 

[History_Buff]

With a Public funding how would you determine who get money/ad time? Everyone even thoses who have no real chance of winning (they just want to show dead babies everywhere) The want-to-be Actor looking for publicity?

There's a number of different ways to handle that. For instance, you can create an allowance of $X for each candidate who runs. How they spend that money is their choice. If they don't receive a certain minimum percentage (say 5%?), they will be asked to refund that money.

Additionally, you can give money to each party. Say the government will reimburse spending up to a certain dollar figure. The parties can sort out which candidates get what amount of funding. Again, if you don't meet the minimum vote percentage, you are asked to refund the value.

You can also mix the above with a per-vote subsidy; in Canada in the last few elections, each vote cast for a party meant that party received $2/year.

These are all systems that are currently in place up here (and we also allow for limited amounts of private donations).

 

[G-Max]

Yes, but wasn't that caused by popular demand for "big gov't" anyway?

Yeah, that was quite the <snip> of events, wasn't it?

17th Amendment -> Great Depression -> Presidential candidate who says that big government is solution to economic woes

Moderator Action: Please don't swear.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[carmen510]

To be honest, lobbyists aren't as big of a problem as most people make it out to be. Out of the thousands of lobbyists, most are insignificant spokespersons that talk with legislators. Actually, they play a vital function in the running of government, as overworked administrators and legislators turn to lobbyists for information when they can't bother to sift through paperwork and deal with conflicted interests.

 

[Cutlass]

Yeah, that was quite the clusterf**k of events, wasn't it?

17th Amendment -> Great Depression -> Presidential candidate who says that big government is solution to economic woes

The Great Depression had nothing to do with the Senate. And history has proven that FDR was right in principle.

 

[G-Max]

The Great Depression had nothing to do with the Senate.

No, not directly. The now-popularly elected Senate did, however, succumb to the "big government can cure depressions" rubbish that only ended up worsening things.

And history has proven that FDR was right in principle.

If history proved anything about how to cure depressions, it's that the Fascists were right.

 

[Cutlass]

No, not directly. The now-popularly elected Senate did, however, succumb to the "big government can cure depressions" rubbish that only ended up worsening things.





If history proved anything about how to cure depressions, it's that the Fascists were right.

Big government can cure depressions. History proves this. Fascism has nothing to due with it. Look at the 19th century. Depressions happened frequently. Look at the "big government" era. Not one depression began.

 

[Miles Teg]

How does making the Senate more corrupt solve anything?

I think the general point is that G-Max hates electoral democracy. Which honestly seems to be the motivation of a good percentage of people who think we need to dramatically reform our system of government.

 

[Ajidica]

The idea is that the state legislatures would be able to prevent the Federal government from becoming a giant tumor that crushes both state and individual rights under its unimaginable weight.

However, what the idea became was a political favor/bribery contest. After the Civil War and the Industrial Revolution bribery accusations became a massive problem. The 17th amendment rectified that. The bribery scandals we have now pale in comparison to what we had.

No, not directly. The now-popularly elected Senate did, however, succumb to the "big government can cure depressions" rubbish that only ended up worsening things.

If you look at GDP growth and when the Alphabet Soup programs were implemented, you will see a rise when the Alphabet Soup programs were instituted and a drop when they were for the most part repealed. Additionaly, Roosevelts programs such as the CCC, TVA, and NRA laid the ground for our immense industrial power in WWII and the postwar boom along with the rapidly increasingly quality of life. Rally against them all you like, but the Appalachians would be in even worse shape had FDR not implemented the TVA. Same goes for the southwest.

 

[Cutlass]

The idea is that the state legislatures would be able to prevent the Federal government from becoming a giant tumor that crushes both state and individual rights under its unimaginable weight.

Funny. In actual US history, the Federal Government is mostly freeing people from the weight of the state governments.

 

[Tahuti]

Big government can cure depressions. History proves this. Fascism has nothing to due with it. Look at the 19th century. Depressions happened frequently. Look at the "big government" era. Not one depression began.

The term big government usually implies undue meddling, total control and fascism. A gov't that manages most of an economy's GDP doesn't necessarily need to be massively involving in peoples' lives, as you can perfectly combine high taxation and gov't spending with personal freedom and economic freedom (understood as the ability to start businesses without unduely strict licensing procedures and red tape).

 

[Cutlass]

The term big government usually implies undue meddling, total control and fascism. A gov't that manages most of an economy's GDP doesn't necessarily need to be massively involving in peoples' lives, as you can perfectly combine high taxation and gov't spending with personal freedom and economic freedom (understood as the ability to start businesses without unduely strict licensing procedures and red tape).

I'm not really concerned with what spin the radical wrong wants to put on it. That's just political propaganda. It has nothing to do with reality.

 

[choxorn]

No, not directly. The now-popularly elected Senate did, however, succumb to the "big government can cure depressions" rubbish that only ended up worsening things.

During the 1920's, it was still popularly elected, and the government was certainly not very involved in the economy- it was even more laissez-faire than it has been in the Age of Raygunomics.

And if people elected politicians who supported "big government" and actually doing something about the depression, and kept voting them back into office, they probably liked what those politicans were doing, and they probably liked that they were coming out of a depression. So why shouldn't the government have done those things? For better or for worse, that's the way representative democracy works.

 

[Luckymoose]

Burning it down will fix the problem. We can rebuild it in Colorado.

 

[dutchfire]

17th Amendment -> Great Depression

Whow, what? Seriously?

 

[G-Max]

Big government can cure depressions. History proves this. Fascism has nothing to due with it. Look at the 19th century. Depressions happened frequently. Look at the "big government" era. Not one depression began.

Are you trolling? I have no idea how anyone can say something so obviously contrary to reality with a straight face.

We had numerous small corrections during the Gilded Age, which was overall the period during which our economy expanded the most rapidly, but not one true depression, or even "great recession". After the WWII boom wore off, we got stagflation, Reaganomics, the dot-com burst, and now the Great Recession... and $14 trillion in debt. I haven't studied the economic histories of other countries in excruciating detail, but the reality of the situation is that in the US, bigger government means bigger depressions and recessions, and less long-term economic growth.

As for the fascist movements, they speak for themselves quite well. Hitler and Mussolini ended the Depression in their respective countries (and, later, in everyone else's countries...). The Falangist movement in Spain doesn't really count, as economic policy was one of the issues on which they differed most strongly from the fascists. Even the governments that call themselves Communist have experienced their greatest periods of economic improvement when following economic policies most similar to those of the fascists.

I think the general point is that G-Max hates electoral democracy.

No, the general point is that we wouldn't have 95% of the problems that we have now if Senators were elected by the state legislatures.

However, what the idea became was a political favor/bribery contest. After the Civil War and the Industrial Revolution bribery accusations became a massive problem. The 17th amendment rectified that. The bribery scandals we have now pale in comparison to what we had.

That's because we don't call it "bribery" anymore. Nowadays, it's "lobbying". Oh, and campaign contributions.

Regardless, bribery is not the problem. The problem is that stupid ideas that would have been contained at the state level are now being inflicted across the whole country, and as a direct result, the Federal budget is gobbling up an ever-increasing chunk of our GDP. This is not sustainable and it is not the road to economic prosperity.

If you look at GDP growth and when the Alphabet Soup programs were implemented, you will see a rise when the Alphabet Soup programs were instituted and a drop when they were for the most part repealed.

Okay. Now adjust those figures for the percentage of the GDP was being consumed by government.

Additionaly, Roosevelts programs such as the CCC, TVA, and NRA laid the ground for our immense industrial power in WWII and the postwar boom along with the rapidly increasingly quality of life.

I'm pretty sure that the infrastructure that was left over from the 1920s, plus our mobilization for war in the 1940s, were what accomplished that. How many new automobile factories were constructed in the U.S from 1933-1941? How many iron refineries? Power plants?

(suddenly has an urge to play Command & Conquer: Red Alert)

Rally against them all you like, but the Appalachians would be in even worse shape had FDR not implemented the TVA. Same goes for the southwest.

Screw the Appalachians and the Southwest.

Funny. In actual US history, the Federal Government is mostly freeing people from the weight of the state governments.

That's only true regarding the Reconstruction amendments and various voting rights amendments, which were approved by 3/4 of the states anyway. Everything else - the War on Drugs, the War on Guns, the entitlement programs, the micro-regulation, etc. - is a huge middle finger to both the state governments and the people.

During the 1920's, it was still popularly elected, and the government was certainly not very involved in the economy- it was even more laissez-faire than it has been in the Age of Raygunomics.

Of course. It's hard to expand government when there's no national emergency, real or imaginary, to use as an excuse for doing so. Of course, saying it was "more laissez-faire than it has been in the Age of Raygunomics" is kind of like saying "more tropical than Mount Everest"; we still had the Federal Reserve screwing things up behind the scenes.

And if people elected politicians who supported "big government" and actually doing something about the depression, and kept voting them back into office, they probably liked what those politicans were doing

That's because voters are stupid, which is why the Senate wasn't originally subject to their idiocy.

and they probably liked that they were coming out of a depression.

...except that they weren't. Not until we entered WW2.

So why shouldn't the government have done those things?

Because they were bad ideas.

Whow, what? Seriously?

Well, it certainly wasn't Great Depression --> 17th Amendment.

Moderator Action: Accusing other users of trolling is considered trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Miles Teg]

No, the general point is that we wouldn't have 95% of the problems that we have now if Senators were elected by the state legislatures.

The 17th amendment let the people pick their own senators, as opposed to the state legislatures making appointments. It's a basic case of electoral democracy vs an electoral college (a real one, not the play version that elects the president). It's very difficult to interpret your opposition to the 17th amendment as anything but a disdain for electoral democracy.