Perhaps we can introduce a few basic questions of budgetary and economic issues in the test that all citizens of a future America must take to get their license to vote …

Well now … The test questions I’d require would eliminate Romney voters, and you wouldn’t want that now, would you?

You’re right that the 17th amendment was disastrous, but around the same time, they stopped adding representatives to the House (further eroding proper representation). Then add the fact that 99% of what the fedgov does is unconstitutional, that the 2 major parties represent 2 wings of the same bird of prey, and that public schooling is a joke, and you have a whole host of legitimate reasons voters make poor decisions.

Truth be told, monarchy makes more sense than democracy. Sure, it’s problematic, but think about it … a 1% tax paid to a distant king living on the other side of a vast ocean, doesn’t sound so bad, does it? King George III was a piker contra the biggest, most expensive government the world has ever known (yeah, the US federal government). So much for being a country founded on liberty and self-government, huh?

Just something to think about.

I understand the need for state representation at the federal level; it doesn’t provide the cost check needed, and has failed both in the US and here in Australia to provide the check it was designed to.

The passing of the 17th Amendment ruined the balance and the checks that our original founding fathers had created in making the House of Representatives a popularly elected body, and the Senate a quasi-representation from the State’s legislatures. Man of property and stature had (and still do) different interests from the moochers. (Your House of Commons and The House of Lords).

That Madison and Hamilton distrusted creating a Dictatorship of the masses is a given, but this is one of the few issues in which they were joined by Jefferson. They all three were right, but to no avail, thanks to the 17th amendment.

Now, if on top of that we add the 26th amendment, disaster strikes.

In general, these systems work as intended when they are set up. Unfortunately, what happens is that the people paying for it change over time, but the voting pool doesn’t change to match.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. Or in a more functional manner, if you derive the majority of your income from the government, you don’t get to vote for the upper house.

Unfortunately for you guys in the US, you seem to have knackered yourselves on this issue in the constitution. It’s an amendment that needs to happen.