Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2735 views
It was a key part of our original federalism. I recently reread the Federalist Papers. Many of their arguments hinged on the states keeping an eye on the Federal government and preventing excesses.
Didn't the federalists lose? The Articles of Confederation were thrown out (metaphorically speaking).
The Federalist Papers were the collective writings of Jay, Hamilton and Madison in support of the ratification of the Constitution. While much less decentralized than the Articles, the Constitution still kept a lot of power out at the states.
One key to this was the fact that half of Congress would be appointed by state legislatures.
The different term lengths and election cycles are still good as a balance to the House, but we've lost an important check and balance with the direct election of Senators.
This doesn't seem like a check against the federal government, but a check against the people. Why remove the ability for the people to directly choose their Senator - except to keep them farther away from the center of government by adding additional layers between them? After all, under the old system, it was members of state Congresses that elected the federal Senator, and those members were in turn elected democratically.
Yes, the Senate was also a check on the excess of direct democracy. It was also seen as a way that smaller states could prevent larger states from dominating the federal government. Again, of course, today Representatives are more aligned with their parties than their states in most things, in contrast to the 18th century.
But part of the genius of this is that the state governments view things differently than private citizens. Consider the source of "unfunded mandates." A Representative beholden directly to voters may look at this sort of law differently than a Senator who answers back to the state legislature that will be responsible for funding the mandates from the Federal government.
The original arrangement pits the natural and healthy interests of the various parties against each other, with the hope of coming to better solutions.
At this point, national parties have overwhelmed almost every state or regional influence (largely due to things like improved communication and a more cohesive national culture, I would argue).
I do keep George Washington's famous warning against political parties in the back of my mind.
Yes, though I'd argure that they're simply an expression of human nature (we're social creatures), and wishing them away will never work.
Matt
If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
