Big Picture Assessment time.. reconsidering the democratic process

[Occam's Banana]

We posted at the same time. My reply is above.

What I said was, that voting for someone to vote for a senator is reductively the same design.

No, it isn't. The dynamic of federal power vis-a-vis state power was substantively and significantly altered when state governments were effectively cut out of the loop and the Senate was converted to a variation of the House.

See, the Founders did not provide us with the correct system, if they really wanted "statesmen", being not politically-motivated busybodies to be senators, then they provided us with a defective protocol, by mandating that our elected representatives in turn choose the senators.

There is no such "correct" system, and there is no "protocol" that would not be defective in some way.

This is the historical truth. What happened was that the parties assumed so much power, that state assemblies were choosing party hacks for senate. Corruption took place. The 17th Amendment was an effort to reduce the party corruption. If we repealed it today, nothing would change for the better. Do you really think that today's Democrats and Republicans should be trusted carte blanche to appoint their own senators?

Corruption is inherent in the nature of politics, and those who seek to devise "protocols" to eliminate it are chasing rainbows.

For this reason, it is better that power (and the corruption that inevitably accompanies it) be more decentralized and compartmentalized, rather than more centralized and concentrated. The 17th Amendment significantly reduced the power of the several states, and centralized and concentrated more power in the federal government.

IOW: The 17th did not neuter corruption. It just made it even more intractably impervious to mitigation than it already was.

 

[Snowball]

No, it isn't. The dynamic of federal power vis-a-vis state power was substantively and significantly altered when state governments were effectively cut out of the loop and the Senate was converted to a variation of the House.

There is no such "correct" system, and there is no "protocol" that would not be defective in some way.

You cannot claim properties to the Senate which it never posssessed. It was never designed to be the equivalent of an Upper Chamber in European parliaments.
There was no landed gentry as in the House of Lords. You need to admit that the democratic process - via elected representatives - is what chose Senators. The adoption of a two-party system was ENHANCED by the original rules. As parties grew to possess the absolute power they have today, allowing those parties to choose Senators is not a less corrupt or more noble process. The senators were party hacks chosen by party officials. We could repeal the 17th today and not a single thing would improve for the better. It would only get worse. No independent would be seated. The Democrat party would choose their own, and the Republicans would choose their own. You'd have senators in there chosen by party elites with no regard for the people.

The devolvement of the US political structure into a party system instead of "statesmen" was not in any way hampered by having representatives choose senators. It was forwarded by it.

 

[ClaytonB]

You cannot claim properties to the Senate which it never posssessed. It was never designed to be the equivalent of an Upper Chamber in European parliaments.
There was no landed gentry as in the House of Lords. You need to admit that the democratic process - via elected representatives - is what chose Senators. The adoption of a two-party system was ENHANCED by the original rules. As parties grew to possess the absolute power they have today, allowing those parties to choose Senators is not a less corrupt or more noble process. The senators were party hacks chosen by party officials. We could repeal the 17th today and not a single thing would improve for the better. It would only get worse. No independent would be seated. The Democrat party would choose their own, and the Republicans would choose their own. You'd have senators in there chosen by party elites with no regard for the people.

The devolvement of the US political structure into a party system instead of "statesmen" was not in any way hampered by having representatives choose senators. It was forwarded by it.

I think the point is not that Senators are landed/titled (obviously not), it's that the non-apportionment of the Senate guarantees that the State government will have a say in the Congress that balances out the popular voice of its people through the House, which has a number of representatives determined by apportionment. I haven't thought about the issue before, so I don't have an opinion on whether this was a good thing or not, but my instinct is that the founding fathers probably had it right, and later amendments were added by the wiles of the serpentine globalists...

 

[Snowball]

I think the point is not that Senators are landed/titled (obviously not), it's that the non-apportionment of the Senate guarantees that the State government will have a say in the Congress that balances out the popular voice of its people through the House, which has a number of representatives determined by apportionment. I haven't thought about the issue before, so I don't have an opinion on whether this was a good thing or not, but my instinct is that the founding fathers probably had it right, and later amendments were added by the wiles of the serpentine globalists...

I don't think they had it right at all. They should have prohibited political parties. The party system was always corrupt. People forget that the Founders gave us what we have today. Even if they did not directly enact it all, they provided the apparatus and the powers to make it possible -- even, inevitable ... or, intentional.

 

[Occam's Banana]

You cannot claim properties to the Senate which it never posssessed. It was never designed to be the equivalent of an Upper Chamber in European parliaments.
There was no landed gentry as in the House of Lords. You need to admit that the democratic process - via elected representatives - is what chose Senators. The adoption of a two-party system was ENHANCED by the original rules. As parties grew to possess the absolute power they have today, allowing those parties to choose Senators is not a less corrupt or more noble process. The senators were party hacks chosen by party officials. We could repeal the 17th today and not a single thing would improve for the better. It would only get worse. No independent would be seated. The Democrat party would choose their own, and the Republicans would choose their own. You'd have senators in there chosen by party elites with no regard for the people.

The devolvement of the US political structure into a party system instead of "statesmen" was not in any way hampered by having representatives choose senators. It was forwarded by it.

I have made no claim so bizarre as "allowing [...] parties to choose Senators is a less corrupt or more noble process" (nor have I made any claim that "the Senate [was] designed to be the equivalent of an Upper Chamber in European parliaments").

I have asserted that the 17th Amendment transferred significant power from state governments to the federal government, and substantively altered the dynamic between states and the federal government (by effectively neutering the influence of the former over the latter). This has made the omnipresent problem of corruption (whether manifested in the particular form of a "party system", or in any other mode of operation) more intractable and impervious to mitigation, not less.

The notion that there is any system or "protocol" that will be constrained to producing only (or even just mostly) "statesmen" - rather than venal glad-handers (i.e., "politicians") - is fatuous. That is why government power should always be as sharply curtailed as possible, and why such power as it does have should always be distributed rather than concentrated. By design and intention, the 17th Amendment represents a signal failure in this regard (as did the Constitution itself, for that matter, vis-a-vis the Articles of Confederation).

If the engineers of the 17th Amendment had actually given a damn about corruption and its consequences, they'd have sought to significantly reduce the power of the federal government, not transfer more power to it at the expense of the states.

 

[Snowball]

I have made no claim so bizarre as "allowing [...] parties to choose Senators is a less corrupt or more noble process" (nor have I made any claim that "the Senate [was] designed to be the equivalent of an Upper Chamber in European parliaments").

I have asserted that the 17th Amendment transferred significant power from state governments to the federal government, and substantively altered the dynamic between states and the federal government (by effectively neutering the influence of the former over the latter). This has made the omnipresent problem of corruption (whether manifested in the particular form of a "party system", or in any other mode of operation) more intractable and impervious to mitigation, not less.

The notion that there is any system or "protocol" that will be constrained to producing only (or even just mostly) "statesmen" - rather than venal glad-handers (i.e., "politicians") - is fatuous. That is why government power should always be as sharply curtailed as possible, and why such power as it does have should always be distributed rather than concentrated. By design and intention, the 17th Amendment represents a signal failure in this regard (as did the Constitution itself, for that matter, vis-a-vis the Articles of Confederation).

If the engineers of the 17th Amendment had actually given a damn about corruption and its consequences, they'd have sought to significantly reduce the power of the federal government, not transfer more power to it at the expense of the states.

Then, it is best not to have a Senate at all, and neither a House, and no President, and no Supreme Court.
In other words, let's go back to the original U.S... a consortium of independent but cooperative sovereign states.
It was the Federalists who drafted the Constitution. They are responsible for our condition today.

 

[ClaytonB]

I don't think they had it right at all. They should have prohibited political parties. The party system was always corrupt. People forget that the Founders gave us what we have today. Even if they did not directly enact it all, they provided the apparatus and the powers to make it possible -- even, inevitable ... or, intentional.

Yeah, as OB has already pointed out, every system has "corruption", so trying to build a system that is corruption-free is not a viable alternative. A viable system of government must be bulletproof against every kind of corruption; corruption must be assumed, not wished-away.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Then, it is best not to have a Senate at all, and neither a House, and no President, and no Supreme Court.
In other words, let's go back to the original U.S... a consortium of independent but cooperative sovereign states.
It was the Federalists who drafted the Constitution. They are responsible for our condition today.

Yes to all of this - except the "let's go back to the original U.S." bit.

There is no going back.

So instead, go forward: negotiate a "national divorce", rescind the Constitution, and then reconcile in the form of (at most) a free trade / mutual defense pact with (at least) an explicitly guaranteed absolute right of secession (i.e., one with no requirements for any showing of cause).

 

[ClaytonB]

Yes to all of this - except the "let's go back to the original U.S." bit.

There is no going back.

So instead, go forward: negotiate a "national divorce", rescind the Constitution, and then reconcile in the form of (at most) a free trade / mutual defense pact with (at least) an explicitly guaranteed absolute right of secession (i.e., one with no requirements for any showing of cause).

The problem with a "national divorce" is that it will divide that part of the strength of the US which is the last fingernail hold against the power of the globalists. Once we are divided, they will finally be able to pick us off piecemeal. The neoCONs screwed us all good and hard, and now we're stuck with this illegal and self-destructive global "empire" built on the War on of Terror. There is no going back but we are in a situation that is more like Houdini chained beneath the water, having to pick his way out of the locks, or drown. Our only option is to pick the damn locks, and stat...

 

[Snowball]

Yes to all of this - except the "let's go back to the original U.S." bit.

There is no going back.

So instead, go forward: negotiate a "national divorce", rescind the Constitution, and then reconcile in the form of (at most) a free trade / mutual defense pact with (at least) an explicitly guaranteed absolute right of secession (i.e., one with no requirements for any showing of cause).

Same thing, back IS forward. Just about anything is better than the present system.

Think about this. Right now, there are 600,000 uncounted ballots in Arizona.

The Secretary of State, Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, is also the candidate for Governor.

She is running her own election. No wonder why she's up a notch.

Somehow, Americans haven't yet figured out that elections should not be conducted by those running for office.

It's like making the quarterback from one of the football teams also the referee.

And somehow, this SIMPLEST and most obvious conflict of interest is never raised as an issue.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Because voting for people to vote for a Senator is somehow less democratic than voting for a Senator ?

Think about that.

It is less 'democratic.' That's the whole point. Please watch the video I posted a few posts back. These are the sorts of people you get voting in direct-democracies. Completely misinformed. "If a democrat win, at least they represent us." To make matters worse, she's actually on a local election board. The woman is a complete idiot. And yes, it's possible that they might vote for complete idiots to vote for idiot senators on their behalf, but the state reps have to have at least somewhat more of an idea of what's going on than she does.

This is coming from someone who believes that expansion of voting rights hasn't done this country a whole lot of good. I believe to vote you must own property. At the very least, you certainly should not be collecting welfare benefits and getting to vote.

 

[acptulsa]

The problem with a "national divorce" is that it will divide that part of the strength of the US which is the last fingernail hold against the power of the globalists. Once we are divided, they will finally be able to pick us off piecemeal.

All of us? All fifty states?

They have D.C. Face facts. So, shall we gift them the whole enchalada? Or shall we tell D.C. to go hang, and make the globalists go through this fifty more times?

One-stop shopping is a convenience for them. That's why they hate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

All of western Europe was better off before the E.U. All the former Soviet states are better off than they were in the eighties. When it comes to keeping your government in your control, it increasingly looks like divided you stand, united you fall. There are too many intramural issues the globalists can exploit when a vast empire is at stake.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Yeah, as OB has already pointed out, every system has "corruption", so trying to build a system that is corruption-free is not a viable alternative. A viable system of government must be bulletproof against every kind of corruption; corruption must be assumed, not wished-away.

Suppose for a moment that all democrats and all republicans were divided and had separate elections. Perhaps the competition would then be "who is the best democrat?" and "Who is the best republican?" Would you finally see new parties crop up? If these two parties were no longer "competing" (using the term loosely) against one another, the competition would have to turn internal. Maybe we could finally get rid of RINOs. The democrats could . . . —well, the democrats would probably fk' up their country pretty badly. But we could get rid of the RINOs.

 

[ClaytonB]

All of us? All fifty states?

They have D.C. Face facts. So, shall we gift them the whole enchalada? Or shall we tell D.C. to go hang, and make the globalists go through this fifty more times?

One-stop shopping is a convenience for them. That's why they hate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

All of western Europe was better off before the E.U. All the former Soviet states are better off than they were in the eighties. When it comes to keeping your government in your control, it increasingly looks like divided you stand, united you fall. There are too many intramural issues the globalists can exploit when a vast empire is at stake.

Right, but that's why MAGA resonated with people so strongly -- "America First" means stop playing empire. Then, the imperialists will go somewhere else. They are power-worshipers, so by putting the Ring of Power in DC, we have guaranteed that the imperialists will flock here. We don't need the Ring of Power. The power of America was its values and vision -- a culture formed from many original nations, unified by a common faith in God and looking forward to the Age to come. All we have to do is stop playing their game, and go back to what originally made us great and, in the end, we will be stronger than they are anyway. In short, we need to rid ourselves of the addiction of sticking flag-pins in the map...

 

[acptulsa]

They are power-worshipers, so by putting the Ring of Power in DC, we have guaranteed that the imperialists will flock here. We don't need the Ring of Power.

So why do we need D.C? My point was, consolidating the states doesn't seem to make them safe from globalists, so why put up with these leeches at all?

 

[Snowball]

It is less 'democratic.' That's the whole point. Please watch the video I posted a few posts back. These are the sorts of people you get voting in direct-democracies. Completely misinformed. "If a democrat win, at least they represent us." To make matters worse, she's actually on a local election board. The woman is a complete idiot. And yes, it's possible that they might vote for complete idiots to vote for idiot senators on their behalf, but the state reps have to have at least somewhat more of an idea of what's going on than she does.

This is coming from someone who believes that expansion of voting rights hasn't done this country a whole lot of good. I believe to vote you must own property. At the very least, you certainly should not be collecting welfare benefits and getting to vote.

I understand, but then how is it we had all those things, and this still happened?
It was all sprung from the root you're defending. Liberalism, even classical liberalism, and financial liberalism, cannot be defended unless one is pleased with the result. We live with the result now.

I believe much more drastic tear downs need to occur. As do many here.

 

[ClaytonB]

So why do we need D.C? My point was, consolidating the states doesn't seem to make them safe from globalists, so why put up with these leeches at all?

No, the original architecture made a lot of sense. It was a more practical version of Friedman's vision of many competing governments. The Federal government was supposed to be basically the "referee" of the game playing out between the States. They would each pass their own various laws, tax-structures, regulatory structures, etc. To some extent, it has worked. Nevada has gambling laws that wouldn't make sense in Delaware; Delaware has corporate laws that wouldn't make sense in California, and so on. But the failures of the system are well-understood on RPF, so I don't need to list them. Basically, the States have no way to stop the Feds from playing the World Empire game (and, in any case, the Feds just bribe anyone who objects, from the loot stolen from overseas imperial adventures). The foreign entanglements entered by the Feds have brought foreign chickens home to roost and it is We The People who always pay...

 

[ClaytonB]

Suppose for a moment that all democrats and all republicans were divided and had separate elections. Perhaps the competition would then be "who is the best democrat?" and "Who is the best republican?" Would you finally see new parties crop up? If these two parties were no longer "competing" (using the term loosely) against one another, the competition would have to turn internal. Maybe we could finally get rid of RINOs. The democrats could . . . —well, the democrats would probably fk' up their country pretty badly. But we could get rid of the RINOs.

Even if it would work (and I don't think it would), the globalists have already positioned the chess-pieces on the board to prevent it from happening. They have seized LA and NY strategically, to lock the coasts and to corrall the heartland in their grip. We would have to split into 3 segments to do what you're saying: the blue West coast, blue East coast, and red heartland. Not gonna happen and the only thing that would come out of it is general mayhem. A Texas breakaway, however, has always been a low-level threat and I think that the heartland has an interest in facilitating that threat as a way to force the globalists to the negotiation table...

 

[acptulsa]

No, the original architecture made a lot of sense. It was a more practical version of Friedman's vision of many competing governments.

Why do I even expect you to read the question before you deliver the totally irrelevant sermon you were going to deliver anyway?

Hey, Clay. Why is the sky gray?

A Texas breakaway, however, has always been a low-level threat and I think that the heartland has an interest in facilitating that threat as a way to force the globalists to the negotiation table...

Oh, there it is. You finally answered my question--in a post where you quoted his question. Feel free to quote this when you get around to answering his question.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Even if it would work (and I don't think it would), the globalists have already positioned the chess-pieces on the board to prevent it from happening. They have seized LA and NY strategically, to lock the coasts and to corrall the heartland in their grip. We would have to split into 3 segments to do what you're saying: the blue West coast, blue East coast, and red heartland. Not gonna happen and the only thing that would come out of it is general mayhem. A Texas breakaway, however, has always been a low-level threat and I think that the heartland has an interest in facilitating that threat as a way to force the globalists to the negotiation table...

I still have to think it would be better. I've been saying for a while that the real debate over the direction of the country is happening within the Republican party, between people like Rand and Massie versus McConnell and Graham. Democrats IMO are nothing more than unthinking noisemakers—a distraction at best— and it would be better to tell them to go outside and play on the playground while the adults talk business.

I mean they showed up in the GA primaries to keep better republican candidates out of office. Its why we still have Raffensburger as our secretary of state and he hasn't done a damn thing to make our elections more secure. In a completely divided system they wouldn't do that because they'd be too busy contending with their own primary elections.