Patrick Henry Arises!!

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/slideshows/12-ways-republicans-want-to-change-the-constitution/2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/12/jeff-flake-arizona-senate_n_1771064.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

It is a rare day when my anti-Federalist blood gets as pumped as it did today when I read this article.  While many Democrats would scoff at me for supporting this, I am behind it..at least tentatively.  In fact, I think if Democrats were to look at their roots, they too might be on board.  If a modern Democrat looked at the party and it's origins, they will see a desire for the public to be best represented.  Jefferson, the first Democrat, had the American people in mind, as did Jackson, Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson.  Indirect election would actually, in my mind, put the election of Senators back into the hands of the people.  It takes some reasoning, but if you follow my line of thought you might just agree

Under the original plans, states elected their Senators in the state houses.  It favored parties that were in power in the state.  This ideally would mean that state officials were more important than they are today.  I am a big fan of close representation which state elections are a prime example.  Ideally, your state delegate is someone from your community.  They are easy to access and are more accountable to their district.  If a state house is Republican, it means that the state is primarily Republican. Simply put, state government is a better representation of the state.

If the state house is a better representation of the people, it picking a Senator to go to Washington would mean that Senator it picks is a better representation of the people.  Granted it does add a middle man, but it would force people to pay closer attention to the representatives they send to their state capitals.  I see people paying attention to a state race more when it means that in affect they are electing three people, not just one. Democrats have always been about close government more than small government.  Jefferson's whole political philosophy is based on the idea of a organic government.  The people representing you should be the people you are closest associated.  The public should not only be educated about the people they are voting for, they should have an intimate understanding of the person.  State elected officials are about the closest you can get, and them have any power.  Adding the power to elect a Senator adds responsibility to the delegates, whom you should have a better relationship.  If you do not agree with the Senator sent to Washington by your delegate, you have every right to vote them out.

There are some inherent  problems with in-direct elections.  The given one being the corruption that comes with it, but it does add positive implications to state elections.  Adding power to the states adds to the responsibility of the state officials, AND the people of that state.  This is something I agree with totally.  We the voting public need to be more educated about those that we are sending to the state capital.  These are people we should already know, so educating ourselves on the political stances should not be too hard.  Knowing too the fact that my state delegate is sending the right person to Washington is something I should take more seriously.  While it might seem less democratic, and something modern Democrats ought to be against, they ought to be behind this.  It gives the power to the people, and taps into the roots of not only the early Democrats but the anti-Federalist nerve endings.  Patrick Henry would be jumping up and down.