1. Firaxis celebrates the "Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month", and offers a give-away of a Civ6 anthology copy (5 in total)! For all the details, please check the thread here. .
    Dismiss Notice
  2. We have selected the winners of the Old World random draw and competition. For the winning entries, please check this thread.
    Dismiss Notice

Feingold: End Senate Appointments

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by downtown, Jan 25, 2009.

?

This is what I think

  1. Changing the US Constitution to end Senate appointments is a good idea

    47.8%
  2. I do not think changing the constitution to end Senate appointments is a good idea

    34.8%
  3. I don't really have an opinion on this matter

    8.7%
  4. This could hurt Obama politically

    4.3%
  5. Only downtown should be appointed to the Senate

    4.3%
  1. Bill3000

    Bill3000 OOOH NOOOOOOO! Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    18,464
    Location:
    Quinquagesimusermia
    Brazil's backup idea seems nice in theory. Saves election costs while allowing people to consent to a replacement.

    I don't see how he's saying that Congress would appoint the successor. He's talking about state special elections here, especially when you look at the link:


    This is allowing the portion of the national body (the consistency) to insert the figure as opposed to a single man.

    The states have to consent to the amendment.
     
  2. bhsup

    bhsup Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    30,387
    Oh my... :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush:

    Yes, the 17th. Though, you know that whole women voting thing.... KIDDING!
     
  3. cubsfan6506

    cubsfan6506 Got u

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    6,266
    Location:
    Awesome Land
    I wish they'd make the senate operate like the parliaments of europe where you vote for a party in national election and they assign the seats.
     
  4. bhsup

    bhsup Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    30,387
    I don't want to vote for a party. I vote for the person. In this last election, I actually voted for more dems than gop'ers, but it was a mixed bag.
     
  5. cubsfan6506

    cubsfan6506 Got u

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    6,266
    Location:
    Awesome Land
    It would only be for the senate.
     
  6. MagisterCultuum

    MagisterCultuum Great Sage

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    Messages:
    16,444
    Location:
    Kael's head
    While I agree with what you mean, I fail to see how taking away female suffrage would fix this problem.

    (I think you mean the 17th Amendment, which I already proposed repealing.)

    Edit: I see someone already pointed this out.
     
  7. Mark1031

    Mark1031 Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2001
    Messages:
    5,234
    Location:
    San Diego
    Bad Idea. It is not a problem that rises to the level of constitutional tinkering. Elections are expensive and difficult to just throw together and make fair in a short time. But that said, Feingold is great.
     
  8. t87supra

    t87supra Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    44
    Location:
    MA/NY
    Whoops, sorry guys. I read the name too quickly and saw "Feinstein." I don't know too much about Feingold.
     
  9. a_propagandist

    a_propagandist The Light Brigadier

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,123
    Location:
    Where else?
    What's with the bull about the Federal government taking power? This is about putting power back into the hands of the people, the constituents of the state.
     
  10. Zamphyr

    Zamphyr Master of the Pan Flute

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2002
    Messages:
    464
    Location:
    New Jersey
    No, it's not. The constituents of the state (Illinois) have decided they want their governor to decide. The Feds are saying, 'Hey Illini, you're dumb, try again.' We'll let you choose as long as you choose our way is not really a choice.

    Not every state fills vacancies by gubenatorial appointment. Some mandate special elections, some let the state senate choose a replacement.
     
  11. GoodGame

    GoodGame Red, White, & Blue, baby!

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    13,725

    I think this would be a fair solution, at least for the situations of 'vacancy' by promotion, to keep the political machine running smoothly. Special elections would be prefered in most oher cases though---e.g. death, impeachment.
     
  12. amadeus

    amadeus Techbrophobe

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    37,524
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Osaka (大阪)
    That's two (or three, I don't know where VR stands) people against the 17th Amendment! Take that, Bill! :lol:
     
  13. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    47,251
    Location:
    US of A
    That didn't work. That's why the Constitution was amended. It's right as it is.
     
  14. Irish Caesar

    Irish Caesar Yellow Jacket

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    10,278
    Location:
    Atlanta, former CSA
    It didn't not work, either; you had good Senators before and good Senators after the switch.

    I wouldn't switch it back, but it's not like it was badly broken before... unless I'm missing something pretty huge somewhere?
     
  15. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    47,251
    Location:
    US of A
    You don't get the Constitution amended without convincing an awful lot of people that it is in fact broken. ;) And beyond that, you had to convince most of the state legislatures to give up power. That doesn't happen on a whim.
     
  16. Miles Teg

    Miles Teg Nuclear Powered Mentat

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,817
    Location:
    One Flag Short of a Theme Park
    Good idea, plain and simple. Letting the people choose their senators should be fairly uncontroversial, as should minimizing the importance of pay for play games.

    Some people have brought up States Rights. Let me be clear here, I'm of two minds on the subject. On one hand, letting each state choose it's own laws, and act as an independent laboratory of democracy is great. However letting the states dictate anything to the national government is a travesty. As well, to be frank I find that States Rights is never the rallying call of anyone I would want to march beside. So from my point of view, the 17 amendment was a great thing for both national and popular sovereignty, and this amendment could be the same.
     
  17. bhsup

    bhsup Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    30,387
    Miles, you just said "national government". I think that is where your confusion is coming from. We do not have a national government. We have a FEDERAL government. There is a difference.
     
  18. Bill3000

    Bill3000 OOOH NOOOOOOO! Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    18,464
    Location:
    Quinquagesimusermia
    ...a federal government is one which deals with matters of the nation as a whole. Unless we're somehow comparing the US with another nation, like say the UK, which is not a federation, the phrases mean the same damn things.

    The statement "letting the states dictate anything to the federal government is a travesty" makes just as much sense. A federal republic does not mean that the federal government has to be weak. The United States is not a confederation.

    It did have problems.

     
  19. Miles Teg

    Miles Teg Nuclear Powered Mentat

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,817
    Location:
    One Flag Short of a Theme Park
    Very true. Technically the United States is not a democracy, but a federal constitutional republic with certain aristocratic elements. That doesn't stop me from referring to the wonders of democracy. However, I did specifically choose the word "national' to make a point. The US is an odd bird, being very centralized by the standards of a federation, and quite decentralized by the standards of a unitary state. Since I was making a point about some of the more ridiculous aspects of states rights, I emphasized the United in the United States.

    But let's get back to the real issue.

    Namely, why is it better that a senate seat be obtained through connections, or pay for play dealing, or deals in smokefilled rooms?
     
  20. Irish Caesar

    Irish Caesar Yellow Jacket

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    10,278
    Location:
    Atlanta, former CSA
    Ah, okay, thanks.

    My "area of expertise" doesn't really extend to the post-War period.

    :)
     

Share This Page