It could. But states governments work like the federal, right? So couldn't the houses hold a vote or something, so that it's not one person picking?

The problem is that you'd have to hold states to account.

@CrystalWhiteMustang is absolutely right, if New York State decided to just appoint, there's no federal statute to prevent that

as pointed out, that would be cronyism

the 17th streamlines the process and protects more authoritarian states like New York and California from just picking who they want and to hell with the will of the people

it also makes freshman politicians viable. While I don't agree with her policies, and I know she represents a different chamber, let's use Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as an example

AOC just primaried a sure thing representative. In New York. Which is almost unheard of. Think about some upstart in the same boat that would make an attempt to do the same to an open senate seat

While I don't think that superceding Article 1, or 10A is a good idea....both of which the 17th is technically in violation of, I do see the merit, especially considering that it's a federal seat

and it also prevents the states from changing the rules in order to suit a particular agenda, much like the DNC did in 2016, and after as well

My thought is if the politicians in the state practice this kind of cronyism or change the rules to fit their agenda, wouldn't it be an unpopular move with the citizens of the state? Wouldn't it hurt their election changes when elections come up? Or am I giving the population too much credit?

*changes = chances

On a lot of occasions, you're giving populations too much credit, unfortunately. Los Angeles is still going to be a magnet for aspiring actors, Seattle for Hipsters, New York for yuppy businessmen, Massachusetts for historians, and all of them for heritage reasons. You'll chase off a few more rigid people, but for the most part the populations will be complicit

That's a part of the reason there has been so much push for federal overreach from the left, so people don't have to vote with their feet

Also, do you think it would still be as much of an issue today considering that information is much more readily available than it was when the amendment was passed?

I have an inherent distrust of any politician who has served more than three terms...so yes

Trust me, you think that we have a problem with term limits now, repeal the 17th and see what happens

What if we repeal the 17th AND implement term limits.

🆙 | **TheSuperShoe leveled up!**

that would be an ideal situation, but you'd have to get term limit legislation passed through people who are reaping a rich government salary off the fact that there are no term limits

that's the age old question of congress though

Sounds like we just fixed all the world's problems.

except there's no incentive by the lawmakers to pass a term limits law

especially if you repeal the 17th

What I mean is we need to repeal the 17th Amendment and return to how Senators used to be chosen. If we do that, then there won't be a need to place term limits on Senators. But I do think we need to place term limits on Congressmen. To learn more about this topic click this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUOGdBgeB14

And by the way, before the 17th Amendment, the Senators were chosen by the state legislatures, because the Senate was designed to represent the state governments. But the 17th Amendment changed that. Now Senators are chosen directly by the people of each state.

May I ask what's wrong with by the people for the people??

actually, no, I have a better question. What state do you live in, and which senator did you get that you don't like??

I live in Texas. My issue is not which Senators I have, because I like Ted Cruz. My issue is that the House of Representatives represent the people, and the Senate represent the states. That's why Texas has 36 Congressmen and only 2 Senators, and why Wyoming has 2 Congressmen, and also only has 2 Senators.

the senate is meant to make sure that the states with smaller populations get a chance at equal representation in congress

it's a balance to keep states like california from controlling everything

If there are any Patrons reading this conversation, please ask Matt and Blonde what they think.

The other Senator from Texas, by the way, is John Cornyn, but I don't really know much about him.

No....unfortunately there are 535 congresspeople, and most people in the country can only name 10 of them, including their own

there's a reason the news only focuses on 14 congresspeople. Those are the ones making all the legislation

There's not much to know about Cornyn. He's been a senator since 2002, but he doesn't really do a whole lot.

He's an establishment type.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/33600/house-appropriations-committee-passes-spending-hank-berrien?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=051717-news&utm_campaign=dwtwitter

^Good, build it

How do I know they're ready to take my call?

in the roll call section, they go through the list of people who have checked in, they start with patreon callers (those who have the orange name) and then they get to non-patreon calllers after that