Sigh... you had to explain it to everyone in the room, and this is college...

It's a good topic. If I were to pursue it, I'd come right out with that argument, that people don't bother to pick anyways, so we may as well leave it up to the professionals; after all, everybody seems to be cool with that on the State level.

You want a dual ending, tho. If people don't rise to their own defense, you need to propose some other Amendment, maybe with "graduated voting" (i.e. you can only vote for President at first, then Congress if you voted for President last year, etc.) or some such -- and if people do rise to their defense, asking them how many are registered to vote and how many voted in the last off-year Senatorial election. The trick will be to display frustration and disappointment, rather than jerkishness.

Curious: do you actually think we should repeal the 17th amendment, or do you just want to see whether the class notices you're taking away their votes?

Nobody's vote would be taken away. The senators were elected indirectly, by the elected representatives of the people.

That's exactly the way the President is elected, via the Electoral College.

[Old Fart] When I was in college, we celebrated the anniversary of the ratification of the 21st Amendment as public holiday! [/Old Fart]

Here's an argument against direct election of Senators:

Since campaign finance reform (sic) was instituted, it has become increasingly difficult to defeat incumbents. The sitting Senator can raise a lot of $, his challenger...not so much.

Unless....

Mr. Challenger happens to be a rich, self-funded candidate, and effectively buys his seat. As a result, the Senate has become a millionaires club, and the rich guys aren't all Republicans. The Dems have their share of Senator Gottbucks.

Kevin

Your example hurts your argument more than helps. The electoral college no longer functions as a two stage "choose the electors who choose the president" process. Instead it's "choose the electors who have decided in advance who they would choose and are often bound by law to choose that person". The indirect mechanism is still present, but instead of providing a check on popular whims it just amplifies the voting power of some states relative to others. You never see an elector campaigning for themself.

As for whether this qualifies as "taking votes away", while I agree that all the people are still represented, though indirectly, they've certainly lost their votes. This is quite clear: they had the right to vote for senators, and on repeal of the 17th amendment they would lose that right.

I agree that the current system doesn't work that well. But elections by the state legislatures would be even more "club" like.

Don't forget the teacher. Now it is a Tech College but because of that the class consists of 3 types of students. Those attending the 13th grade, those who couldn't make it to a University, and those who realized they mucked up their lives by wasting time and are trying to fix it and don't have the time or money for a 4year school (I consider myself in that category). Luckily I have evening classes since I work full time and you don't get so much of the 13th graders.


Now I feel sick as hell today and am fixing to pop a Tylenol PM so I don't have time to explain my beliefs. But yes, I do feel the 17th amendment needs to be repealed along with the 16th, 22nd, and I'd entertain the 23rd (sorry barracksSi.

For fun I might ask the women in the class if they want to stop "Woman's Suffrage" and get them to sign a sheet.

Hehe... that's like petitioning to ban dihydrogen oxide.. ;)

For reference:

16th: legalizes federal taxation that's not a fixed amount per capita
22nd: limits presidents to two terms
23rd: permits DC to choose electors for president

The 16th allows us to have any sort of proportional income tax, including the range from a flat (percentage) tax to a graduated one. While I would be interested in arguing about the merits of graduating the tax, I think it's quite clear that flat (per head) taxes are a bad idea. Tax everyone $5000 and you have a huge burden on the poor but a tiny one on the rich.

On the 22nd, yes, we should repeal it. If people want to reelect a president for a third term, they should be permitted to.

As for the 23rd, the right thing to do is either make DC part of another state or it's own state. The 23rd amendment is a bad compromise, but repealing it would not improve anything on its own.

Hahahahahaa. I'm going to contact the CDC on that one.