One person's view of bad/worse may be another's view of good/awesome...I don't know of anything specific in that time period that makes me think things were good it bad by having governor appointed representatives, but they managed to get enough governor's to give up their rights in order to allow two sets of people's representatives...there must have been a good reason.
I don't think Governors historically appointed Senators except to fill a vacancy. Before the 17th amendment, I think Senators were chosen by state legislatures. And I wouldn't call them "peoples representatives". In fact, I think it's the exact opposite. Senators represent land more than people. Every state gets 2 Senators which means high population states like California (appox. 38 million people) gets the same number of Senate votes as a state like Wyoming (approx. 600,000 people). The Senate voting power of the small states is extremly lopsided and doesn't come close to the "one person, one vote" principal.
The "one person, one vote" principal is so far gone, that "Business Insider" made a map showing that one half of the US population lives in just 146 of the over 3000 counties in the country. Can you imagine how under-represented you are if you live in one of these counties (Fulton, Gwinnett, and Cobb in GA)? Just another reason for me to move to the country.
The "people" can self impose term limits, but the "people" aren't smart enough to actually do it. While congress has a terrible approval rating, most people think their congressmen are doing a good job.
^^^ agreed. These career politicians and their fat-cat backers are making a mess. When more people know the names of the 3 stooges than know the 3 branches of government we are in trouble.
Topic: Obamagraphics - post'um here (Read 4486 times)
