Republican Senate Candidate Says Voters Shouldn’t Be Allowed To Elect Their Senators

[Galraedia]

Source: Addicting Info

Todd Akin is currently in a primary race to be the Republican candidate to face Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill in Missouri. As part of the primary, Akin took part in a debate last week and tried to justify stripping Americans of their right to vote for their senators, which is guaranteed by the 17th Amendment of the Constitution.

Akin claimed that directly electing senators violates state’s rights. As you may already know, state’s rights is a phrase that conservatives use to justify their opposition to things such as same-sex marriage, a woman’s right to choose, minorities having the right to vote, health care, and has been used in the past to defend slavery. Akin says that the only way to make state’s rights stronger is to take the election of senators out of the hands of the people, and allow state legislatures to hand pick them. In other words, Akin wants to take away a Constitutionally guaranteed right that strengthens democracy, so that conservative legislatures across the country can select senators who will faithfully push the conservative agenda, even if the people reject that agenda.

“I have a very serious concern about erosion of states rights,” Akin stated at the debate. “Very serious concern of that, and this, reversing this decision might pull that balance back. I am, as I’ve mentioned, a strong conservative, I don’t think the federal government should be doing a whole lot of things that it’s doing and it well may be that a repeal of the 17th Amendment might tend to pull that back but I haven’t written any thesis on it or anything like that.”

Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/30/republican-senate-candidate-says-voters-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-elect-their-senators-video/

[elleng]

1. OK Jerk, its a deal, WE WON'T VOTE FOR YOU!

[JustAnotherGen]

7. I can only hope that the

GOOD people of MO take note - and stop this weak little man in his tracks.

[Pat Riot]

24. Yeah. SHOW HIM. N/T

[Judi Lynn]

15. "I want to withdraw your right to elect senators. Vote for me, Todd Akin." That makes so much sense!

[center]

Todd Akin

[/center]

[Sherman A1]

49. Precisely

[freshwest]

61. That'll fix him!

[Diclotican]

2. Galraedia

Galraedia

More and more, it looks like the cloak of what Republicans really are about, is coming to light... Now they even go so far, to say that The VOTERS should not be allowed to elect their Senators on a State level - or federal.... This smells like a beginning to something... BAD for the american voter as long as I se it..

Diclotican

[christx30]

16. But remember:

The republicans are the party of freedom, right? You're not supposed to think about all the ways that they keep limiting freedom or restricting rights or getting as many people as possible to stop voting.

[Diclotican]

32. christx30

christx30

Party of freedom - my ass.... I just hope they are not allowed to do this - if exposed as they really is, then it might be a long time before the republicans can get into power again....

But if anything about this is true - it is a blatant attack on the core idea of a democratic society, the will of the people to vote to who they want to represent them on local, State and Federal level... (And I'm not even an american, or live in US, but even I do understand this is bad, very bad for the Republic.. )

Diclotican

[liberal N proud]

3. What is he afraid of? DEMOCRACY?

People like this should be disqualified from office for their lack of knowledge and respect for the process.

[librechik]

4. Good ol GOP--turning the clock back to the eighteenth century. n/t

[cyberpj]

5. I think this is from fear & the ever-shrinking % of rich old white men in US. +Scalia? Really? Wow.

Then I went to the link and read the article -- it essentially says the same thing.

snip-
Over the years, many Republicans have called for repealing the 17th Amendment, including Utah Senator Mike Lee, Texas Governor Rick Perry, and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, just to name a few. Akin is just the latest Republican to do so. But why do Republicans hate Americans having the right to elect their senators? The answer is that Republicans don’t trust the American people. If you haven’t noticed, Republicans have been making efforts across the country to severely restrict voting rights. From voter ID laws to voter purges, Republicans have a major problem with people having the right to vote. A New Hampshire Republican once said that college students shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they’ll vote liberal. And conservative preachers and writers have actually complained about women having the right to vote.

[littlewolf]

6. actually I am ok with the state legislators

picking the Senators ...

[sharp_stick]

8. Really?

It was so easy to buy a Senate seat it was pretty much pathetic. See the enviable and slippery Senate career of William Clark for one of many examples. This dirtbag was one of the many reasons the 17th amendment actually made it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Clark

"Clark's long-standing dream of becoming a United States Senator resulted in scandal in 1899 when it was revealed that he bribed members of the Montana State Legislature in return for their votes."

The Senate is already full of assholes, I don't need some redneck shithead Governor putting his buddy and/or cousin into a Senate seat without a vote.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. The article does itself a disservice by failing to acknowledge that this is how it used to be

before the 17th amendment.

Particularly ironic given the closing line:

"And that is completely contrary to American values and what the Founding Fathers envisioned for this country."

The Founding Fathers engineered a constitution by which senators were elected by state legislatures.

(I am not endorsing a repeal of the 17th, I rather like it, however, the article does severely shoot itself in the foot there.)

[rexcat]

27. The framers of the Constitution also allowed amendments...

so on May 31, 1913 the amendment was adopted. It would also appear that one could buy a US Senate seat prior to the adoption of this amendment. If someone wants to change it back to where the state legislatures "elect" the Senators good luck with that! People who run for the US Senate still buy the seat but it is more fair than prior to 1913. So what the original framers wrote in the Constitution is a moot point so I think the "foot" is okay!

[AtheistCrusader]

34. The person you refer to buying it, was removed from his post.

There is nothing un-American about considering removing the amendment. The author cast the removal as 'un-american' as a step back from democracy that the framers would have disapproved of. That was an error, regardless of your opinion on whether it should be repealed.

(I do not support repeal)

[BumRushDaShow]

18. And ironically, his daughter Hugette just died a year ago

(May 24, 2011), the last blood benefactor of his extreme wealth as a robber baron (which gave him the means to buy his seat).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35470011/ns/business-local_business/t/clarks-american-story-wealth-scandal-mystery/

They are still trying to settle the estate. One can see why these wannabes want to go back to that time.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

19. Why? Please explain.

I certainly don't want my state legislature picking my senator, that's for damn sure.

[Volaris]

33. As I understand it, (if I'm wrong, someone can correct me)

state legislators picked a State's Rep. to the Federal Govt (Senator) for 2 reasons:
because the job of a Federal Senator was to vote and lobby on behalf of the best interest of the Sovereign State Government(s), and
because the Senate was designed to exist as a check against the potential minority-rights-trampling mob-rule that could emanate from the House of Representatives, due to that body being the DIRECT representation of the Will of The People.

The system ended up being so corrupt, however, that it was changed to a direct election, and apparently, Mr. Akin thinks the change is unconstitutional, and wants it put back the way it was. I agree with the idea of the Senate being a check on the idiocy of the House, AND I agree with the idea that a Senators job is to rep. the BEST interest's of any given State (even if the majority of the people IN that state don't or can't see what that best interest is) but the mechanism direct elections for Senators was a change for the better, I believe, and, in, IMHO, that makes Todd Akin an idiot.
That was kinda long-winded I know, but I hope it helps=)

[littlewolf]

35. for one thing

people would pay alot closer attention to local /statewide races ...

the federal gov't could not force unfunded liabilities onto the states ...

those are the biggest two ...

I like the idea of the Senator being more "intune" with their "boss"
which would be the state.

edited to add additional thoughts

[Tommy_Carcetti]

51. The intention of government was to be "For the People, By the People"

You might want to check out the preamble there.

It's not "For the States, By the States."

I don't want my Florida legislature, who despite representing an extremely purple 50-50 state skews ridiculously to the right, electing my senator. We'd end up with Allen West.

[Cosmocat]

59. Then you are OK with a republican super majority in the Senate

I live in Pa.

We have a pretty big registered D voter edge, usually manage to have the democratic candidate for president win the state and a good democrat can win at the state level - governor, senator, ect.

Because these weasels have crafted the most gerrymandered congressional and state house/senate districts in the country, we have a mortal lock republican state senate and a state house that is solid R most every two years, and (also, more R house members than D house members).

Bob Casey is one of our senators, and the great Joe Sestak darn near overcame an R wave election to beat under the radar right wing extremist Pat Toomey last cycle.

You have this kind of set up where the state legislature picks the state's senators, you would have two republican senators from Pa until the day we die.

This is no unique with a lot of states.

The republicans are at a disadvantage on a fair fight at a larger level. Their game is to eliminate the democratic process as much as possible and to put the battle on fields that they can rig - which they do so much easier at the state level.

[littlewolf]

60. No I am not ok with a R super (or any) majority

and I understand what people are saying ...
by having Senators being held accountable
to the states they represent ..
I believe people will pay more attention to
statewide elections ..
I also believe having Senators actually
representative to their states
it will provide balance ...
as others have stated much better then I
in this narrative ...

[Blue_Tires]

62. I'm not...So many state legislators are batshit insane, incompetent

and/or completely unfit for office, but they live in podunk districts where 1,000 votes is easily enough to keep them re-elected for life...

[jwirr]

10. What is with these idiots. Electing people to represent us is what Democracy is all about. They are

so unpatriotic.

[littlewolf]

11. actually

we are a Republic not a Democracy ...

the Senate's purpose is to represent the various states business
not the peoples ... the peoples house is the House of Representatives

[jwirr]

12. What he wants is like what they have in the UK? I am not sure about that but sounds like it.

[ieoeja]

25. Actually, we are a Republica AND a Democracy.

We use democracy to elect some among us to run the republic. Other examples of republics would include:

French Republic (under Emporer Napolean)
Peoples Republic of China
Peoples Republic of Korea
Peoples Republic of Vietnam
United Soviet Socialist Republic

The Rightist meme that we are not a democracy is two-fold:

1. It is a pretense that being Democratic is not being American despite the fact that the Democratic party predates the Republican party by many decades.

2. As this thread points out, Conservatives have never trusted the people to run our democracy and/or simply did not want them to run our democracy because they wanted to secure the power to themselves. The Confederacy actually debated reestablishing the Feudal system entirely. When Conservatives lost that argument, they proposed reestablishing Feudalism in the North after the war, but that debate was postponed until the war's ending which, at it turns out, made the debate moot.

[crazylikafox]

30. Good points. Thanks

[24601]

38. I'd characterize it as a democratically-elected Constitutional Republic. n/t

[littlewolf]

53. true ..

this is put much better then my poor attempt ....
a democracy as I understand it is basically majority rule ...
Wiki:

A purer form is direct democracy in which the voting public makes direct decisions or participates directly in the political process.

this is what I was taught in HS Civics class ..

there is also this:

The most common system that is deemed "democratic" in the modern world is parliamentary democracy in which the voting public takes part in elections and chooses politicians to represent them in a Legislative Assembly.

what we have is as stated by Ben Franklin
is a republic "if you can keep it"

from Wiki:

modern republics such as the United States and India, the executive is legitimized both by a constitution and by popular suffrage.

so yes when I hear "we are a Democracy " I think of
were the people makes direct decisions or participates directly in the political process.
blame Mr. Blane Rex my civics teacher ...

[Odin2005]

44. Alerted. Enjoy your short stay.

You think you are going to get away spouting the talking points of the extreme reactionary Right?

[awoke_in_2003]

45. "we are a republic, not a democracy"...

That right there is a right wing talking point started by Rush, and used by every puke I ever talk to. "republic" is another way to say representative democracy. It has been for many, many years. The meme about republic started around the same time we became the "democrat" party. And you know what is funny, the same people who say we aren't a democracy live to brag about how we are the worlds oldest democracy.

[littlewolf]

57. see my 55

someone put it better in #38 then I did ..
" I'd characterize it as a democratically-elected Constitutional Republic. n/t"

as far as Rush goes ... I don't listen to him ...
have heard his show on occasion ...
he seems to spend much more time
trying to sell people on a subscription service of his
as well as talking about himself ...
he seems to be in love with the sound
of his own voice ...

[awoke_in_2003]

63. Not saying you listen to Rush....

But every time I hear "we are a republic" argument it is always a republican saying it

[littlewolf]

64. understand what your saying...

but this is from civics class in 1974 ...

I a democratically-elected Constitutional Republic
explanation ...

[coalition_unwilling]

54. if you want to get technical about it, we are a 'democratic republic' (emphasis on

lower-case 'd' and 'r').

[Meiko]

13. Actually

Senators were elected to represent the state, that's why the state legislators selected the Senators they wanted representing them in Washington. The old system also provided for more control over the Senator. If He/She wasn't doing their job they could more easily recalled.

A brief history of the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution: The U.S. Constitution, as originally framed in Article I, Section 3, provided for U.S. senators to be elected by state legislators. This gave each state direct representation in the legislative branch so as to deter the usurpation of powers that were constitutionally reserved to the states or to the people as written in the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment prescribes that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The 17th Amendment changed the basic separation of power, providing for direct, popular election of U.S. senators and took away from state governments their constitutional role of indirect participation in the federal legislative process; this was the first loss of states rights.


Read more: http://tdn.com/news/opinion/guest-column-change-the-th-amendment-restore-checks-and-balances/article_e86ff2b2-e17a-11e0-8710-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1wNFUbbW3

Repealing the 17th amendment is not necessarily a bad thing. It would return the system back to way it was intended.


Edit link.

[jwirr]

17. Hmmm, and with the idiots we have in the MN congress since 2010 we would not have any Democratic

senators. It may have worked back then but I want nothing to do with it today. By the way you did not say why it was changed?

[Meiko]

26. If memory serves

It was driven by corruption, the buying and selling of senate seats. Let me research that though I could be off base. Here we go..... legislative corruption and electoral deadlocks. The state legislators sometimes could not agree on who the senator should be which caused delays. The state wound up with no representation in Washington.

[jwirr]

37. That doesn't surprise me. Look at what a deadlock can do today.

[treestar]

20. They still represent the state

They are elected by the people rather than the legislature but their function is still the same.

It would be a very bad thing. The 17th made the system just a little less paternalistic. The people can choose the state's Senators as well as the already elected by the people state legislators. That was a reform that was needed.

[Flying Squirrel]

22. If it`s Republicans who want it

then it`s probably a bad thing. The framers of the Constitution put an amendment process in place for a reason, they did not expect the original document to be cast in stone - they WANTED it to change when it needed to be changed.

[Kencorburn]

28. Sometimes the way things were intended to be 235 years ago,

is not the way they are supposed to be now. That's why the Constitution was changed immediately after ratification, and 17 times after that.

[coalition_unwilling]

55. Thank you. The phrase 'more perfect union' carries within it the implicit

notion of a process leading toward perfection, of continual progress.

Cf. Lincoln's 'Gettysburg Addres' or Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream' speech.

[NYC Liberal]

29. It may not be INHERENTLY bad, but there was far more corruption in the old system.

One of the primary reasons was that it's a LOT easier to bribe a few legislators to vote for you than it is to run a statewide campaign persuading millions of people to vote for you or rig an election in which there are millions of votes.

[SGMRTDARMY]

21. So let me guess

He'd rather have corporations vote for Sen.

[LiberalFighter]

23. He thinks it should be a state right? Crap on him!

Congress is not for the purpose of individual states. State rights is the right to determine what type of state government they want.

By the way, for those that suggest that we should have state legislators or governors decide the Senators because that was the way it was done before. What else are we doing different from those days concerning the Constitution? There was a reason the Founding Fathers provided a way for amendments to the Constitution. Don't forget that the original Constitution didn't even have the Bill of Rights (Those are the first 10 Amendments.) They weren't added til about 3 or 5 years after.

Hope this helps in discussions.

[dmallind]

31. I'm SURE the fact that this would end up as a 63-37 Repub Senate

has nothing at all to do with his opinion.....

[NorthCarolina]

36. Why is he campaigning for votes from the public if it

violates his beliefs? Shouldn't he be waiting until he is appointed to the Senate?

[Hubert Flottz]

39. I guess the shit in Washington isn't crooked enough for

republicans already.

[LeftishBrit]

40. Well, they can make a start by not electing him as their senator!

[Swede Atlanta]

41. More and more they want to take rights away from the people.....

Let's face it when election of Senators was in the hands of state legislatures, political influence often affected those elections.

Given today's highly-charged and heavily-financed elections, this would be tantamount to handing the Koch brothers another 100 votes in favor of their corrupt, stealing and killing agenda.

This guy should be run out of town on a rail. I suggest he be sent to someplace like say, Iran, where they love to deny people rights. He would fit right in there.

[d_r]

42. they can gerrymander the districts

to get majorities on state legislatures. You can't gerrymander the whole state, but you can districts.

[Odin2005]

43. These bastards want to go back to when only property-owning men could vote.

That is their ultimate goal, they will even admit it if you press them hard enough.

Read up on these types and you will see that they want to restrict voting to property-owning men, institute debt slavery, and generally take everything back 200 years.

[coalition_unwilling]

56. property-owning white, straight men - n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

46. What a twit

[freshstart]

47. He's funded by Citizens United

"The Citizens United Political Action Committee is donating $10,000 to Rep. Todd Akin to entice him into the Missouri Senate race."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/0311/Citizens_United_tries_to_tempt_Todd_Akin.html

[Historic NY]

48. Wow they really want to take us back..

perhaps to having a republican king.

[Uncle Joe]

50. Typical Republican MO only a few degrees separation from their tactics of working to keep the people

from voting at all.

Enemies of democracy, indeed.

Thanks for the thread, Galraedia.

[lumpy]

52. We evolved into the United States of America. Hope we can retain that definition, in

spite of the fact we are so divided in our beliefs.

[coalition_unwilling]

58. Can you believe this is the same state that gave us Harry S. Truman? Side note:

I grew up on a farm just outside his birthplace (Lamar) and went to college where he cut his political teeth (Kansas City\Independence).