• Troy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 month ago

    This is so weirdly stated. One can make legitimate arguments against an elected Senate. Things like: sober second set of thought with long term outlooks, meritocratic appointments to balance short term hysteria, etc. Hell, Canada has an appointed Senate, and despite the grumblings of some (mostly conservative) provinces, it works reasonably well. The UK has the House of Lords for similar purposes.

    But in the US, where appointments have all become political (see Supreme Court), it could be dangerous. And in particular, when only one party is lobbying to stop democratic forms, it’s usually in an attempt to grab some sort of power. One has to tread carefully here.

  • Zachariah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 month ago

    A resolution called for ending the ability to vote for U.S. senators. Instead, senators would get appointed by state legislatures, as it generally worked 110 years ago prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913.

    “We are devolving into a democracy, because congressmen and senators are elected by the same pool,” was how one GOP delegate put it to the convention. “We do not want to be a democracy.”

    • Know_not_Scotty_does@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      I trust the Texas Legislature even less than the average Texas voter. This seems like a way to intensify the radicalness of the pool that goes to Washington but admittedly, I am not familiar enough with this kind of system to have an informed opinion on it.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        Until about eight years ago, I would’ve said this seemed like a way to decrease the radicalness of the Senate by forcing candidates through a filter of party establishment support. Now, though, the whole Republican Party establishment is radical so it’s more a way to reinforce that and prevent deradicalization.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    See I still believe that we should find a special piece of land to put these guys on. Reserve something, set it aside, and make sure that they’re allowed to have their sovereignty and mostly run at their own way, but only within the borders of this little piece of land. We’ll have to come up with a snappy name for it though. I’m open suggestions because, I can’t think of a good name for a place that’s reserved just for a certain kind of people.