> The process is federally operated and the same processes are followed everywhere.
The US has state-run elections, as provided in the Constitution (Article II, section 1).
Each state could individually opt-in to use a federally run system (or portion thereof), but the feds can’t mandate it, absent a Constitutional amendment.
The USA is really a republic of states in many regards and the states have [or at least started with and in theory still have] a lot more power than in many other countries where the central government is stronger.
I agree with your overall preference. I’m not as sure that the 17th stripped power from the states, so much as defined how that power was elected. (It’s clear that it could make some difference but not clear that it shifts overall power federally.)
Because before the 17th the Senate was the State Governments representative in the congress. Senators represented the desire of the State Legislatures not the People of the states.
This is why all spending bills have to start in the House, because the House is the peoples voice in congress, and if they want to spend the peoples money it has to start with the peoples voice, not the States.
The US was to be a republic with only a single part of the new federal government democratically elected, there was / is a reason for that. Separation of Powers and distributed power being the key concepts.
By changing congress to have both the house and the senate become democratically elected the State Governments lost their voice in the federal government.
> The US was to be a republic with only a single part of the new federal government democratically elected
Just because the president is elected indirectly through electors, and Senators were elected through States, doesn't mean they were any less "democratically elected" than Representatives. You could equally say that the House of Representatives is undemocratic because democracy would require all laws to be approved by referendum.
Also, in case anyone still thinks that representative democracy is antithetical to the goal of a republic, and goes against the wishes of the Founding Fathers, they should consider Hamilton's words: "But a representative democracy, where the right of election is well secured and regulated & the exercise of the legislative, executive and judiciary authorities, is vested in select persons, chosen really and not nominally by the people, will in my opinion be most likely to be happy, regular and durable."
>> You could equally say that the House of Representatives is undemocratic because democracy would require all laws to be approved by referendum.
I do say that, I know its probably a shock but I am not a fan of democracy. I believe democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner. I do not support the generally popular idea that democracy is the best form of governance.
>>anyone still thinks that representative democracy is antithetical to the goal of a republic
It can go against the goals of the republic, democracy itself needs to be balanced against other powers. The US was setup to be a careful balance of interests, over the years we have upset that balance and today the democratic elements of our republic are antithetical to the goals of the republic as founded, which was to promote and preserve the Lockean philosophy of individual rights.
The democratic elements in our current system have replaced this idea of Individual rights, with the idea of collective rights... Has replaced the philosophy of negative rights, with positive rights. Has replaced individualism, with collectivism
Individualist like myself see this has a problem.
>>goes against the wishes of the Founding Fathers, they should consider Hamilton's words:
Personally I am not a big fan of Hamilton, and he hardly spoke for all the "Founding Fathers". Many people seem to have this idea that the "Founding Fathers" all sat in a room agreeing with each other. Far far from the case. They largely disagreed with each other, and many hated each other. Personally I am more of a Jefferson, and Franklin supporter than a Hamilton supporter. Hamilton had the desire to create a much stronger and more centralized federal government than many of the other Founders were comfortable with, He had to make many concessions that reduced the power of the federal government. Most famously he was opposed to the Bill of Rights even being included as he saw it as unnecessary...
No to me Jefferson was better founder... and if I was alive then I likely would have been a part of the Anti-Federalists...
> I believe democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner.
What system would you support instead of democracy, and how would you convince the 2 wolves to support that system when they could just ignore it and eat what they want? At least under democracy, the lamb might get 4 years to emigrate, or persuade the wolves to become vegetarian.
Democracy may not be perfect, but the fact that human society has invented a system that is more peaceful and liberating than either civil war or dictatorship is something like a miracle, so I don't expect there to be something fundamentally different and better that humans could implement.
I do think that not all democracies are equal, though, and it's worth considering the possible options regarding voting systems, gerrymandering, mandatory voting, recall elections, the size of legislatures, campaign finance rules, and so on.
> The democratic elements in our current system have replaced this idea of Individual rights, with the idea of collective rights... Has replaced the philosophy of negative rights, with positive rights. Has replaced individualism, with collectivism
I think your disdain for current political and societal trends has been directed at the idea of democracy, but it is merely a scapegoat. If anything, democracy has made people feel more empowered and more individualistic, whereas allowing the states to elect the Senators on behalf of the people is a more "collectivist" approach. Also, I'm not sure how you can blame democracy for the philosophy of positive rights, except to say that most people in the US support the idea of schools and food being provided for poor children.
There is maybe an argument for requiring super-majorities for changing very consequential aspects of a country, such as the minimal set of powers granted to the federal government, or the minimal set of restrictions that the federal government can place on the individual states, but even that is a form of democracy, and if anything it is more collectivist to require a super-majority than a simple majority.
I don't want to put words in your mouth or misrepresent you, so forgive me if this is an unfair characterization, but if what you're actually saying is "I prefer how things were, and I wish that the system made it as hard as possible to introduce all these new changes that other people seem to want", then I would say that this is not a principled position on the system itself, it is a self-serving preference for whatever system would give you the outcome you wanted. Such a preference would fail the "original position" / "veil of ignorance" thought experiment, and therefore should be rejected.
> No to me Jefferson was better founder
Then let me also provide some other quotes, expressing his views on democracy and individualism. "It is my principle that the will of the majority should always prevail."[0] "Every man cannot have his way in all things. If his opinion prevails at some times, he should acquiesce on seeing that of others preponderate at other times. Without this mutual disposition we are disjointed individuals, but not a society."[1] I don't know how representative those quotes are of his over all philosophy, and I think the Joker may have said something similar to the second one, but hopefully it confirms the idea that the modern trends you are reacting to have very deep roots.
The US has state-run elections, as provided in the Constitution (Article II, section 1).
Each state could individually opt-in to use a federally run system (or portion thereof), but the feds can’t mandate it, absent a Constitutional amendment.
The USA is really a republic of states in many regards and the states have [or at least started with and in theory still have] a lot more power than in many other countries where the central government is stronger.