> > The state supreme courts would overturn it in
> >heartbeat. The US supreme court would, if they
> >didn't. Congress would pass a constitutional
> >amendment overnight revising the electoral
> >college.
> I don't think the US Supreme Court would have a say. The US Constitution specifically gives to the states the power to decide the method that their electors are chosen. There's nothing at all about a popular vote for President and Vice-President in the US Constitution. So if a state decided "Hey, next time we'll just let the legislature pick 'em", then the US Supreme Court could pretty much do nothing about it.

Legally, no. The strict constructionists would have no choice but to uphold it. But the liberals on the court would probably uphold "the will of the people". Given the current makeup of the court, the court would probably uphold the result with a few dissenters.

> In fact, this is the way it *used* to work in a lot of places. US Senators also used to be elected by the state legislatures instead of direct popular vote. The only part of the US Government that has *always* been elected directly by the people is the House of Representatives. And that's why it's also the weakest of the three.

The whole systems a comprimise. The senate is supposed to defend the little states against the big states, the house of representative is supposed to help the big states against the little. However, the representatives in every state tend to be split up according to the makeup of their district.


> I've thought about this for awhile, ever since Stephen pointed out to me how preposterous it was to vote directly for US Senators. Why is it that some states can have two Democratic Sentators in Washington and yet their own state legislature is predominantly Republican. What exactly are they thinking? Most of the time, they're *not*, which is why it's so silly. As long as an incumbant doesn't make too many waves, he usually gets re-elected--unless there is some big national uproar about his party and he gets ousted just *because* he's a Republican or a Democrat. Is that any way to run a Senate?

It's one of the problems with our political system. When the economy is good-as it's likely to stay for a while-incumbents get voted in regardless of party. When it goes downhill, there are major upheavals. That's why I think term limits are a good idea-or at least voluntary term limits. Some states had term limits of their own that were struck down by higher courts not too long ago.

> The entire point of the bi-cameral legislature was that one part was to be directly elected by the people of each state (House of Representatives) and the other part was to be appointed by the legislature of each state (Senate). Representatives are elected for only two years, while Senators serve six year terms. The entire point was that "the people" tend to be capricious and as a general rule under-informed about what really goes on in Government--so they get to choose guys only for the House, and those guys only get to serve for two years before they have to run again.

The house is a section of government much more accountable to the people locally. Short terms, and local districts. Theoretically, the house should be better representative of the people's will than the Senate.

Of course, the districts for the house races tend to be gerrymandered. San Diego county in California is 58% Republican, and used to have all Republican representatives. But the highly democratic legislature redrew the districts to give the Democrats two extra seats. We've got one really highly republican district, one fairly competitive one, and two solidly democratic ones. It's gerrymandering. Because of the way that's gone the state legislatures have exerted far too much influence over the house as well. If they got to pick the Senate as well... state legislatures could indirectly be the most powerful political force. And they tend to be ignored.

> On the other hand, the legislature gets to pick the Senators. The idea here is that the legislature would probably do a "better" job than the people of picking who gets to go to Washington, and it's *still* republican representation because the state legislatures are elected directly by the people in most cases.
> What's the point of directly electing Senators? Take a big state like California, which has something like 52 Representatives but only has the same 2 Senators that every state gets. Who are those Senators representing? Everyone in the state? Half the state? However, it's clearly defined who "your" Representative is. You have much more control about who ends up being "your" Representative than who ends up in the Senate. If you want to get in touch with someone in Washington, the chances of reaching one of your Senators is close to nil. However, Representatives are fairly easy to get in touch with, for the most part--that's their JOB. And their constituancy is so much smaller than that of their counterparts in the Senate that they can't *afford* to ignore someone from their District who is persistant in wanting to get in touch with them somehow. Plus, they only serve for two years--not much time for the people to "forget" past transgressions.

If the Senators were only accountable to the state legislature... you see, people pretty much ignore the legislature. I don't even know who's in it. But I know my senators and represenatives. The legislature is easily ignored, and it's hard for either party to make major upheavels. Giving them the power to control Senators-the most influential body in Washington... I don't see it as feasible right now.

> The truth is, the way our government is set up, the Senators in Washington aren't *supposed* to be representing "you". They represent your state as a whole, and are there to protect and preserve the interests of their state. Having the legislature pick them was the way it was set up to make sure of this. The people pick their legislature, and their legislature picks the Senators. Then, the people get to vote directly for Representatives, to balance everything out. If you don't like what your Rep is doing, you wait a few years and get rid of him. If you don't like what your Senators are doing, you vote for different people for state legislature seats. After all, if you don't like the philosophy and ideology of your Senators, it's rare that you're going to like those same qualities in the members of your state legislature.

Funny, reminds me of the electoral college. It's Democracy 2 levels removed. Pick someone to pick someone to represent you. If that system was re-implemented-I suppose gradually people would learn to focus more on their own local representation in the state, the governor and legislatures. It would also make the Senators much more likely to fight for state's rights, and supreme court appointees who would support state's rights.

> Another benefit is that with direct election, it's possible to have one senator from a state be Republican and one be a Democrat. How does *that* serve the state in Congress? They're more likely to just constantly be cancelling each other out, thus defeating their entire purpose for being there. With the Senators picked by the legislature, it's nearly a certainty that both would be from the same political party, unless the state legislature was nearly equally divided as well.

And would that be a good thing? If a state, like Florida, is very evenly split-should the legislature step in, appoint electors, and decide Senators? It's a very conservative legislature in a fairly moderate state, because the legislature is largely ignored. If a state is 50/50 wouldn't that mean their votes SHOULD cancel out?

I suppose that would likely be reflected in the legislature as well, but as I said, as of yet not much attention is paid to them.

> So I say screw direct elections of Senators, keep the Electoral College for electing the President, and let's just concentrate on our *state* legislatures and our Representatives. It'd certainly make state politics more interesting if they got to appoint Senators every six years--and it might make people think harder and learn more about their choices for state legislature, too.
> -- Dave

For a change like that to take place you'd need a constitutional amendment. The current senate would not go for it, realizing that that would threaten everything they've built their careers on. It's just not likely to change. I suppose it might be an improvement over the current system, but it would be hard to convince the people that they shouldn't have a direct say in the most powerful legislative body in America