SamuelRSmith said:
Although, with point 3, I support term limits in the House, and returning the Senate back to the states. Point 2, that was done on purpose. Originally, the Federal Government was supposed to have very little effect in the daily lives of the US citizens... unfortunately, after reconstruction, and the progressive era, all that changed. As such, the House was directly elected, the Senate was appointed by the States, and the President was indirectly elected (a mix between the two). The idea was that the House would continously fight for Federal power, while the Senate would fight for State power, and the President acted as an arbiter between the two (as this was where all their political incentives were laid out). These fights were supposed to keep the Federal Government to within the confines of the Constitution. Obviously, once the States were removed from the process, and Senators were directly elected, the whole system broke, and the incentives were all geared towards Federal power. Directly electing the President would be the last nail in the coffin for the Republic, and the country would essentially become a straight democracy. |
So, you want to make senators an appointed position? Have you looked at the history of the senate before the amendment was passed? They changed it for a reason. Divided legislatures would often deadlock and senate seats would be vacant for many years. The appointed senate was also probably the most partisan group of people ever to be in government as they were acountable to their political party, not the people. The problem with the senate doesnt come from elections, that isnt what keeps them from focusing on states rights. The problem with the senate is the political parties. If anything, elections help them focus more on their state, and history will vouch for me there.
Looking at the presidential election process, i dont see how the electoral college helps anything other than making it cheaper to run for the office. As it is now, it is pretty much just an election in 9 states, the rest of the country doesnt matter. Those states benefit from ad spending and having the politcians care about issues important in those states. It gives those few states more power than rest of the country and for what? How would a direct election be worse? All it would do is spread the power of electing the president among all the states, not just the 9 battleground states.
It wouldnt make it a democracy either. It would still be a representative government were the laws are drafted and passed by a few elected officials. Democracy would put the majority of the people in charge of passing laws, and we arent anywhere close to that.