Why do some states have polar opposites as Senators

Additional Information

Look at Tennessee and their two Senators.  Lamar Alexander although a Republican, votes like a Democrat.   Bob Corker although not as bad as Lamar, has decided NOT to run for re-election because of the turning tide.  


If the State legislature were electing the Senators, you would see conformity like Hawaii has.  Look at Brian Schatz & Mazie Hirono's voting records.


Although Colorado is far from a Conservative state, why do they have one Senator a Republican and one Senator a Democrat?  Even though they are both Democrats.


Florida is another state that splits parties with even greater divergance with Bill Nelson and Marco Rubio (has moved closer to Democrat as he has aged)


Kentucky calls us with Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell.  Polar opposites of the same party...  When someone has spent 33 years in Washington DC, how can they be a resident of the state they are representing???


How about the Big MO???  Roy Blunt (R) and Clair McCaskill (D) but they really aren't polar opposites, the republicans continue to allow more and more people into the party that can not find a seat in the Democrat party cause they are all taken...


You have to go all the way to Montana to find polar opposites..  Steve Daines (R) and Jon Tester (D)


So my final thought here is this, When the 17th is repealed, we can remove party affiliation from the Senate.  No more wasting money on party differences, there will be 50 states...

Learn More

Check put your Senator Here:  www.conservativereview.com/scorecard/

What would the Senate look like if the 17th were Repealed?

National Conference of State Legislatures

 

Using data from the National Conference of State Legislatures as of February 2018, Republicans control 32 state legislatures, the Democrats control 13 legislatures and 4 legislatures are split (Nebraska's unicameral legislature is not included). So that would roughly translate to 64 seats for the GOP in the current Senate (under the old pre-17th Amendment rules). That also would put the Republicans four votes over a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority and within three seats of a 67-vote supermajority needed to override a presidential veto.

The amendment ratified in 1913 still has its critics, particularly among states' rights advocates. Repeal proponents have pointed to several benefits. Foremost, it gives state governments a direct voice in the federal government and budgeting process, something proponents believe reflect the desire of the Founding Fathers for states to have a dynamic role in Washington.

But other factors would make repeal problematic. Only one amendment, the 18th, has ever been repealed, when the 21st Amendment ended Prohibition.

The anti-17th Amendment forces would need 38 states to ratify a repeal amendment, which is no small task, since two-thirds of Congress or the states would need to agree to offer one up for ratification votes.

On top of these challenges, perhaps the most significant factor preventing repeal would be what helped the amendment pass in the first place--the idea that the direct election of senators, giving power to the people rather than the states, is the most democratic approach.

Senators should be at home getting direction and planning.

Management of Senators

Rather than taking foreign trips to far off exotic places, senators should be visiting with their state legislatures discussing future legislation, not hamming it up with terrorists that are trying to kill us... 

Senators still have 6 year terms

Voters have short term memory loss, Politicians do not

Politicians have longer memories than voters do.  Besides, prior to the 17th Amendment, states could recall their Senator for really any reason, but especially voting the wrong way...  After the 17th there is no provision for recalling a Senator.  They can quit if the offense is egregious enough, but who cares about votes now...


House members are elected for 2 year terms so if they disappoint the voters in their districts, there is only two years to make up for it...  Senators on the other hand can generally do what they want for the first 4 years, then they do a few things to show that they have changed and the voters are appeased, especially if the voters don't have a choice (no opposition).  


Generally the Senator has the same constituents that the house members have:  Lobbyists, Party officials and Major Donors, except that the entire state votes for them rather than a district, which leads to one of my other points - Consistency in philosophy - Tennessee has 2 Republicans, but both are really Democrats.  Corker is the more conservative at 51%.  Still a Failure!!!  But then what does Alexander have to brag about?  He is less conservative than some Democrats and both him and Susan Collins have an identical voting record, so why is he and she in the Republican Party and why have they not been invited to leave?  Because the Democrats would gladly take them and Schumer would be Majority Leader...  Screwed up ain't it...  If you look at Alexander's votes you can see who he represents and it certainly isn't the state of Tennessee...  


So with Republicans like these, who really runs the Senate?   Charles Schumer  is the true Majority Leader.