Richard Mourdock opposes direct election of senators

Richard Mourdock opposes direct election of senators
February 4, 2012 - New Carlisle Township Library

RICHARD MOURDOCK: "Repealing the 17th amendment. Do I think it will ever happen? No. Is
it something that I would like to see? Yes it is. And I'll tell you
the trackers in the room, my Democrat tracker friends who are here as
they always are probably seeing something that you'll see in a tv
commercial not too far from now. You know the issue of the 17th
amendment is so troubling to me, our founding fathers, again those
geniuses, made the point that the House of Representatives was there
to represent the people. The Senate was there to represent the states.
In other words the government of the states. I will tell you as
someone who spends a lot of time in the statehouse obviously, and a
lot of time in local government, one of the most frustrating things
state government and local government deals with are called unfunded
mandates. It's where the federal government will say you must do this,
and we're not going to pay for it. You got to figure out a way to go
get the money and you must do this. How many unfunded mandates do you
think would be coming from the United States Congress, if those same
Senators had to come back every two years to help those people get
reelected so they would elect them. You know I think most senators if
they had to come back every two years and by the way that would solve
another problem. It would solve the idea that Senators move out of
their state and never return. But it would cause those senators to
have much greater contact with their states. You know just think of
this. In today's you see millions and millions of dollars spent on
Senate campaigns. Two years ago, in 2010, Sharon Angle out in Nevada
spent 31 million dollars, just herself. How much money would be spent
in federal senate races if the state legislators were electing those
people. You just took the money out of politics. Is that a bad thing?"

• Category

  News & Politics

[MuttleeCrew]

Oh for crying out loud! Richard Mourdock is a total idiot! He seems to be on a power trip.

[nathanjamesbaker]

This guy doesn't seem very bright.

[ncite1]

Of course Richard Mourdock opposes direct election of senators. It's cheaper for lobbyists to bribe a few politicians than the entire electorate.

[Tmetrvlr]

But covertly rents from Bijou World. That Phil Hinkle Clone-In-Denial......

[GameFAQsWisdom]

Mourdock doesn't realize that instead of the money going to Senate campaigns, it would go into paying off the legislators who elect those Senators. That's graft. When the money goes to a campaign, it goes to staff & advertising. Atleast 'we the people' get to make a choice. When legislators at the State level make that choice, guess what Rich Mourdock? NO CHOICE.

[LaughingLefty]

Mourdock is a Fascist plutocrat. The less democracy there is, the more corrupt the state. Democracy isn't perfect, especially when the political process is tainted by the flawed and irrational concept that money equals speech, but it's the best antidote to corruption there is. Mourdock is arguing for more corruption and less transparency, the wet dream of oligarchs and robber barons.

[62WildEagle]

The reason why the people wanted to elect senators was because of corruption. Its easy to see where there is at least 25 -30 state senate chambers in the hand of republicans why they want to have the states choose. The people of The States made the choice to change the way senators are elected a ratifyed by a majority of states. Just like a Republican to scream unfair when they cant win on the merits of there arguments, to try to change the rules so they can win. Republicans, unreal.

[leahbethm]

The party of the state legislature majority is NOT always the same as the party of the senators that have been elected. We must NEVER allow our right to vote for senators to be taken away! Vote all the republicans OUT-of-OFFICE in November!

[thinkkbe4uspk]

LOL...only a child (or a brainwashed-can't think for myself idiot) would follow the non-logic that not voting for senators is "taking the money out of politics". PLEASE!! It would take the people's choice/voice (what little we have left) out of the senate. If Mr. Mourdock is so concerned about taking the money out of politics he would support campaign finance reform. It doesn't surprise me at all that a Teapublican wants to separate the state from the people, so they can dictate our lives easier