so! do you want the tn. legislature to pick your senators?

[towerclimber37]

If you think that you're smart enough to pick your senator instead of leaving it up to them, you might want to call your state representatives and ask them about this bill:
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/SB0471.pdf

 

 

[Volzfan]

Another example of just how out of touch and out of control they are getting!

[towerclimber37]

for those folks in the north east tn area: district 1 you may go here to voice your displeasure : http://www.sullivancountygop.com/State.html

[RobertNashville]

Out of touch and out of control?  Seems an odd statement considering this bill would return Senator selction to the very method our founders intended.  I see nothing wrong with moving back toward the way our republic was set-up to operate.

 

And before anybody tells me that the people will do a better job of selecting Senators than the state legislature one only has to look at what we have (Corker and Alexander) to know just how baseless that argument would be.

 

Many here claim they want the power returned to the states that the federal government has stolen - this is a step in that direction.

[Raoul]

You are aware that it used to be that way?

 

Robert just beat me to it, See above.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Raoul

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Not quite. Before the amendment, years ago, it used to be that the US Senator was in the Senate to represent

the views of the people of his state of origin. The state could tell him what his vote meant to the state and had more

power over his vote. I think he could even be recalled. After the amendment, and being voted on by popular election,

said senator didn't have to answer back to his state, which is part of the problem with the US Senate.

 

This bill just gives the legislature the power to nominate the candidate. Like Robert said, I'm not sure if it is any better

or worse.

 

Someone less lazy than me could go look up the specifics of the old way. I could have gotten it wrong.

[quietmike]

Agree with Robert Nashville. Returning to the founders intention is good with me.

[c.a.willard]

Even with just the power to nominate it returns some power back to the state.  If a senator does not do what is in the best interest of the state the legislature would now have the power to refuse to nominate them for another term.  Im with those above who feel this is a step in the right direction.  I would also like to see a term limit added to this bill.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It could also to circumvent the party apparatchik. I see it both ways, and until that amendment is repealed, there

won't be much accountability returning back to the state. Just my opinion. I would rather have the US Senator

more accountable to the people in this state.

[gregintenn]

Agree with Robert Nashville. Returning to the founders intention is good with me.

One has to wonder why it was changed to it's present day form. I find myself undecided on the issue. I would, however, like to once again be able to vote for my school superintendant.

[quietmike]

One has to wonder why it was changed to it's present day form. I find myself undecided on the issue. I would, however, like to once again be able to vote for my school superintendant.

 

The Orwellian part of me thinks it was changed to make us more like a true democracy instead of a constitutional republic, so senators would be better able to buy votes with government money.

 

With that said I believe the Cloward-Piven strategy is at work.

[mav]

I think so many people don't understand how our government was initially set up.  Senators were never intended to represent the people, that was the function of the House of Representatives.  Senators represented state issues.  I would be all for repealing the 17th.  There is just too many special interests and outside influence at work with the way it is now.  More than likely, bills such as Obamacare would have never made it through the Senate if things were back to the way they should be.

[Oh Shoot]

I think so many people don't understand how our government was initially set up.  Senators were never intended to represent the people, that was the function of the House of Representatives.  Senators represented state issues.

 

There is also no national presidential election called for either.  Only that each state select a candidate, doesn't even specify how.

 

I think it would be very healthy overall if the only thing the folks could vote on were their Reps. It would focus all the wasted American Idol type frenzy on just one person for each voter -- and a much greater likelihood of holding the bastard's feet to the fire.

 

- OS

[Rowdy]

Even with just the power to nominate it returns some power back to the state.  If a senator does not do what is in the best interest of the state the legislature would now have the power to refuse to nominate them for another term.  Im with those above who feel this is a step in the right direction.  I would also like to see a term limit added to this bill.

This is a state bill, term limits are not in the US constitution. That would require a constitutional amendment.

[Volzfan]

If we have problems with the ones that we elect now just wait until the good ole boy network starts stacking the deck with their own puppets!

[Mike.357]

anything would be better than what we have now.

 

I say give it a go.

[Guest PapaB]

I agree that returning to the original method would be good. I'm not too sure about this bill though. It appears to only do away with the primary race for the U.S. Senate, not actually return to the original selection.

 

"by joint caucus, in an open meeting, nominate a person to run as that party's candidate in the general election"

 

As mav mentioned, the 17th would have to be repealed to return to the founders method of state selection. This would be more of a hybrid and would make it tough for 3rd party candidates to get a foot in the door.

[Dolomite_supafly]

If you wanted to improve the country you could do it with just one thing. Remove the "R" and "D", or any other letter, from beside a candidate's name on a ballot.

 

If you did that it would force people to actually give a crap rather than take the easy way out and vote party lines. And it would put those who are actually educated and responsible in power (I am talking about the populace and not the representative).

 

We have all seen those videos where people have no clue which presidential candidates are running yet they are excited about voting. How can they get so excited or even want to vote when they do not know who they are voting for. And I suspect the majority of these people will likely vote "D" because they see it as a payday. How can a representative represent the voter if the voter has no clue what their candidate actually believes in. And in all reality it shouldn't even matter what a representative believes in, he should only be concerned what those he represents believe in. 

 

Remove that letter next to their name and then voters will either research who their candidate is or just stay home on election day.

 

I have zero problem with a person voting for who they want to win as long as they actually know what the candidates name is and not just party affiliation.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I would just as soon people get more involved with the party of their choosing. You would only be going from a

system with problems, that can still be fixed with enough people actually giving a damn, to a more complicated

one that would be difficult for the masses to get a grip on which individual they think they like.

 

Things like platforms, co-ordination between local state and national elections would be more chaotic without

the R,D, I or Tea Party(T :D) I think it would just be more complicated for people who quit giving a damn, a long

time ago, to once again get involved.

 

When you decide everyone in a group is bad, what will it take to make you change your mind when you can't figure

out what side someone is actually on? The Republican Party is infected with progressives, just like the Democrat

Party is with communism. How do you fix it? You disinfect, or replace the party with another. America is a competitive

country. It's almost like a football game. You have your team. Pick it wisely, or replace it.

 

The republic is fragile. Be careful how you protect it. We already have a Constitution. We need to be thinking

more like our founders. They were activists. We seem to have forgotten to be like them.

Edited April 4, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[zapfbroad]

I think they sent the bill to summer reset to ponder over since Haslam decried how he disapproved of it. I heard sen nicely speaking about the why of crafting this and I understand his point of view. He contends that because so many us senate candidates are bankrolled by such wealthy patrons, hmm like haslam?, it in essence prohibits the people from having any actual choice. so rather than have the selection process in the hands of a few plutocrats it would at least be deferred to the tn legislators who are accountable to the people every few years. The idea being that once these corkers & alexanders get to d.c. & meet even more plutocratic fat cats they have even less interest in being altruistically motivated on behalf of the state and succumb fully to those national lobbyists & special interest groups willing to bankroll their next election run.

In theory I can see the merits of his argument. I believe the change from the original process was implemented by the progressives a 100 years ago. In practice if would be interesting to see if it is as susceptible to corruption as our current system is or not. I'm actually in favor of it if for no other reason than to shake the current status quo and piss off lax & lazy incumbents.

[Worriedman]

anything would be better than what we have now.

 

I say give it a go.

 

Keep in mind, the people who have control of the legislators are the ones who hand out committee appointments and lucre from the Caucus PACs.  If the collective thinks that letting the triumvirate (Haslam, Harwell and Ramsey)  pick your next Senator is a good thing all you have to do is check the conservative bills that have made it to Public Chapter in the last two years...

 

Want to work on repealing the 17th Amendment, I am your boy, will be right in front holding a flag.

 

Under the original plan, the State Legislature could recall the Senators at their discretion if they failed to satisfy the State, I would be all for that!

Edited April 4, 2013 by Worriedman

[towerclimber37]

After reading quite a bit and talking to some folks..I've changed my mind.
I actually like the bill.

Unfortunately, after eating crow with Jon Lundberg, he told me it's DOA.  

I learn something new every days folks.

[wjh2657]

Go for broke! Repeal the 17th Amendment. This would greatly weaken the hold that the National political parties have on Congress. Senators would have to answer to their state legislatures instead of the National parties, as was intended by the founding fathers!

Edited April 4, 2013 by wjh2657

[Guest HvyMtl]

Um.  Ever read the legislation these people write?  And you want THEM to pick your U.S. Senator? 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Only if the 17th was repealed.