Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Article 1: Eligibility


vcczar
 Share

Eligibility Poll  

19 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of these proposals do you support for eligibility to serve in the US Senate or US House?

    • US citizenship required
    • Natural Born citizenship required
    • Citizenship not required, but residency is required
    • No age restrictions
    • Must be at least 20 years old for US House
    • Must be at least 25 years old for US House
    • Must be at least 30 years old for US House
    • Must be at least 25 years old for US Senate
    • Must be at least 30 years old for US Senate
    • Must be at least 35 years old for US Senate
    • There should be a maximum age for office/retirement age
    • The office holder does not need to be a resident of the state or district
    • The office holder needs to be a resident of the state but not the district
    • The office holder must be a resident of the district
    • The office holder's primary residency must be located in their district
    • The office holder must have been a resident in the state or district for 5 years
    • The office holder must have been a resident in the state or district for 10 years
    • The office holder must have been a resident in the state or district for 20 years
    • Officer holders for US Rep must have a college degree or higher.
    • Officer holders for US Senate must have a master's degree or higher.
    • The lower house is "elected" via a lottery system of eligible citizens who elect to take part in the lottery for office. 
    • The US Senate is appointed by the state legislature and will not face votes by the people.


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, pilight said:

Disappointed that the maximum age isn't drawing more support

I'd say the same for returning to state's appointing Senators (though not surprising at all). I'm a big fan of restoring the federalist balance in the federal government by giving state government a direct voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

I'd say the same for returning to state's appointing Senators (though not surprising at all). I'm a big fan of restoring the federalist balance in the federal government by giving state government a direct voice.

Shouldn't the people of that state be a reflection of that government and elect the US Senators of their choice? Seems rather authoritarian to go back to that. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Shouldn't the people of that state be a reflection of that government and elect the US Senators of their choice? Seems rather authoritarian to go back to that. 

Actually it's the other way around.  The government of a state should be a reflection of the people.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pilight said:

Actually it's the other way around.  The government of a state should be a reflection of the people.

I don't think it often reflects that, especially in states with a high % of low income people or with a high % of African-Americans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, vcczar said:

Shouldn't the people of that state be a reflection of that government and elect the US Senators of their choice? Seems rather authoritarian to go back to that. 

Giving state governments a role in the federal government acts as a direct check on federal power. The people get their branch in the House of Representatives and the states get their branch in the Senate (thus a check on both political units).

Plus, a nice side affect of this would be greater involvement at the local levels, which is severely lacking these days. People do not realize how many decisions are made without their voice because they do not care/know about the local races. Should this work out, it would actually increase the democratic elements within these local/state systems of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

Because a large number of the State Governments in the 1910's had often become corrupt, self-serving, de facto one-party systems in many cases, I'd imagine.

Precisely my point, and a hint of sarcasm given the others here seem to want to return to those days...

If state legislators were in charge wed have people like Roy Moore still in the Alabama Senate.... 😛

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Pringles said:

Precisely my point, and a hint of sarcasm given the others here seem to want to return to those days...

If state legislators were in charge wed have people like Roy Moore still in the Alabama Senate.... 😛

No, Roy Moore would have never been selected by the political establishment of Alabama. Luther Strange (the appointed Senator) would have won the seat for a full term if the legislature decided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

No, Roy Moore would have never been selected by the political establishment of Alabama. Luther Strange (the appointed Senator) would have won the seat for a full term if the legislature decided.

A flawed example on my end but in a scenario of a special election I wonder who'd they choose over a Democrat with as partisan as Alabama politics may be.

Returning to state legislatures will eventually end up a repeat of the excesses and corruption of the past. 

Plus, in states where state districts are often gerrymandered, you'll have potential scenarios of say, 2 Republican senators in Pennsylvania, Michigan, or any other state that vice versa. Point being, they do not reflect the voters of that state. Game was rigged from the start so to speak.

The Senate as a body could potentially use greater requirements, as the job of a Senator is more more prestigious, important, and requires some sort of experienced individual. However, taking this process away from the people is not Democratic, and I am glad that we are on no realistic course to the past on that one.

Edited by Pringles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pringles said:

A flawed example on my end but in a scenario of a special election I wonder who'd they choose over a Democrat with as partisan as Alabama politics may be.

Returning to state legislatures will eventually end up a repeat of the excesses and corruption of the past. 

Plus, in states where state districts are often gerrymandered, you'll have potential scenarios of say, 2 Republican senators in Pennsylvania, Michigan, or any other state that vice versa. 

The Senate as a body could potentially use greater requirements, as the job of a Senator is more more prestigious, important, and requires some sort of experienced individual. However, taking this process away from the people is not Democratic, and I am glad that we are on no realistic course to the past on that one.

Except, this did nothing to stop the corruption within government. The federal government, along with the elections process, is still full of it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Except, this did nothing to stop the corruption within government. The federal government, along with the elections process, is still full of it

I'd say it's much better than having gerrymandered representatives decide which bozo should represent me... wayyy better than that. Senate elections and the process is quite fair. 

Although to be fair. Itd shut the "stop the count" and "rigged mail in ballot" people from blabbering their nonsense... but they may not like it when all of the old men convene to decide who represents them 😛

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...