The Victor should get the Spoils

Yesterday's Detroit Free Press offered an editorial on how Michigan might reform the way in which it draws Congressional districts in order to be more 'fair' (whatever that means) in the allotment of seats. You may find the article here: http://www.freep.com/opinion/ , if you so desire.

It's an op-ed written rather fairly, to be fair. It talks about how Michigan Democrats would use the current system exactly as the GOP has recently (in its favor, naturally enough) if given the chance. Yet it also points presumed out anomalies in Michigan voting patterns. President Barack Obama has won the state comfortably both times he's run, and Michigan has two Democratic Senators despite Republicans controlling the state legislature. Yet this point little more than questions whether the Free Press editorialists are themselves being partisan under a white flag of openness.

True, they do point out that the option they present of a bipartisan committee to draw new districts after every census might well aid the Republicans from Democratic despotism should the GOP ever be in the minority in Lansing. But it is easy to wonder if that is a smokescreen which hides the actual truth: that Michigan is a Republican state where statewide popular elections muddy the fact.

It would behoove us to remember that prior to the turn of the 20th Century senators were elected mostly by state legislatures. Indeed, that the US Senate itself was originally intended to represent the States as States. The people already had their direct say in the House of Representatives. The states, being sovereign themselves, were supposed to be represented in the Senate. If those rules still applied, rules altered by the route of a Constitutional Amendment also sold under the banner of fairness, Michigan would have along with a its Legislature two Republican Senators to compliment its decidedly Republican state house and congressional delegation.

So the truth may be that Michigan is more staunchly Republican than it appears and that the scheme for more neutral district drawing is little more than an attempt to in fact reshape our state as more to the left than it actually is. Perhaps we ought to have kept our Constitution as originally written rather than having altered it for the sake of fairness.

Now you see why the word 'fair' was quoted above. Like so many other terms of political origin, it only means in this case what the writers of the Detroit Free Press editorial board wish it to mean. It should surprise no one that that meaning is selfish.

To a degree the victor should should get the spoils. In Michigan's case, that has left the cause of partisanship, a cause besmirched only by the losers, exposed for what it is: selfishness itself.

Direct Election of Senators

Much gets said about what's wrong with our government, but little gets said about concrete ways to fix it. To be sure, everyone seems appropriately concerned with the acts and laws of government being constitutional. Yet rarely does anyone actually address the document itself. There are things within it which could be changed or altered to better direct the workings of Washington.

Although he himself calls it a distraction, GOP Senate challenger Pete Hoekstra has actually come to support an idea which would radically change the US Constitution. He has expressed his support for the idea of repealing the 17th Amendment. Ironically, that's the one which put in place the direct election of US Senators.

He makes a good point. If senators were elected by state legislatures as they once were, then they could get back to their true job: representing the states as states. We are a federal system after all: it isn't as though the state governments should have no direct say in federal matters. They did when they sent Senators to Washington

Needless to say, his Democratic detractors are calling him a hypocrite. Yet what option does he have under the current system? If he's going to run for Senate he must do it under the current rules. That doesn't make him a hypocrite, but merely and obviously practical.

But let's call things what they are, under the current status quo. We have two Senators, Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin, who will not be seeking the best interests of Michigan while in Washington. They are liberal Democrats supposedly representing what is currently an overwhelmingly Republican state. Republicans hold majorities in both State Houses, indeed an overwhelming one in the State Senate, as well as the Governor's chair. Stabenow and Levin cannot be seen to truly represent Michigan as they are diametrically opposed to the obvious will of Michigan residents as expressed in the November 2010 elections.

This is why we need to return to the days when state legislatures selected the representatives to the upper house of our national legislature. This is why we need to repeal the 17th Amendment and at least let the states select senators as they see fit, to best represent the entire state rather than a certain, liberal, out of touch constituency. For clearly Stabenow and Levin do not speak for the majority of Michigan residents.

The Senate was originally supposed to represent the states as states. We must remember that the states are political entities in their own right, and as such merit a certain independent representation at a national level. These days, a run for the Senate is no more than a popularity contest without regard for what may be in the best interest of the state. Indeed, without concern for the will of the whole state.

This is only for a start, to perhaps begin discussion. Sure, nothing will come of it as the special interests hold too much sway and federal power has become too entrenched. But Hoekstra is right. We need to repeal the 17th Amendment.

An interesting argument in favor of repeal can be found here: http://www.restorefederalism.org/?gclid=CLzYpJS357ECFcZQKwodUDUAAA

Enjoy.