Are you sure? My studies show that the inability of states to appoint senators because of bipartisan bickering was the main reason behind the construction of the 17th Amendment. At the time, there were far fewer situations where corruption like you mention was happening and far more situations where states were going many years without a senator at all.

Lewis states, ” Our framers were great men, but they were not perfect men and if they lived long enough to see what was happening with the appointment of U.S. Senators by state houses, I have no doubt they would have clamored for a change. Perhaps they would have not put it into the hands of the people, but they certainly would have reformed the process in which states pick Senators.”

Are you sure? What evidence do you have to say such things? In my reading of the fed papers it seems quite clear to me that the founding fathers (at least Madison, Jay and Hamilton) were very aware of what would happen if both the house and the senate were elected by the people. As one example that I can quickly find, Madison states, “No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then of a majority of the states.” He could make no such point after the passage of the 17th amendment. I seriously doubt the founders would have changed the way senators were chosen by the states, rather they would likely spend their time (as they did when writing the federalist papers) in educating the people about why they need to attend their local caucus meetings and be involved in the important selection process of their state leaders. The interesting thing is — if most citizens of Utah would only read the fed papers, then the founding fathers will have achieved that goal posthumously.

Lewis states, “The repeal of the 17th amendment makes no sense if the original problem is not corrected.”

yes, I have agreed with you before on this point. However, we possibly do not agree on what “the original problem” is? My belief is that nothing needs to be corrected except for 1 thing: The people of the great state of Utah need to educate themselves politically and economically and then attend their local precinct caucus meetings and vote for good delegates. There is very little else that needs to be corrected. Everything else that is wrong with the obvious corruption in our state leaders would be corrected by that one thing. The people already have the power to fix what is wrong.

Lewis states, “While every citizen has a chance to participate in the caucuses, many are shut out.”

I read your story, and it's a sad story. Their vote was not shut out, and if all of the registered voters in your precinct had been in attendance, would they still be “shut out”? And then, if a small minority is shut out when your entire precinct is attending, is that wrong? In other words, if the majority rules against the minority, isn't that what a democracy is for? Again, if your precinct caucus meetings are not meeting the desires of the majority of your neighbors, then the only blame I see that can be properly placed is on your neighbors (same as mine) for not attending the precinct caucus meetings.

Lewis says, “until we can resolve this problem on the local level, I will not support the repeal of the 17th amendment. “

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? If the 17th Amendment is wrong by itself, then is it better to remove it first and teach the people at the same time that they must be involved in politics? Or, is it better to teach the people first, then when everyone gets it — repeal the 17th Amendment?

My opinion is that by itself the 17th amendment does more harm than good. Currently, the “mob rule” you speak of is much more prevalent with the the 17th amendment in place than without it. The people have far more power to have a senator who represents our state by the process put into place by the founding fathers (i.e. without the 17th amendment) than they do with it. The people already have the power, but they don't yet know where it is. Slowly, surely, we are getting more people to understand representative government and to attend their local caucus meetings.

It sounds like we may need to discuss the caucus system as well and why it is such a good thing for Utah. Many call it “antquated” or “peculiar”, yet it is one of the best systems to prevent mob rule. It works great when 5/6ths of the people stay home like they're doing now, but it works much better when they all come and participate.

This has been a great discussion, don't you think? Thank you Lewis, in particular, for your views and opinions. I enjoy discussing this. I wish we could do it in person, it might be faster, and I would probably understand you better. I think we agree much more than it appears in writing only.

Doug Cannon

Oligarchy? What do you think we have on the hill right now? A Republic? We have a one party system that our Republican oligarchy has protected by passing anti-democrat party legislation by depriving them from their sources of revenue such as payroll-PAC deductions. We already have an unethical good old boys club oligarchy on the hill right now that is more interested in lining their pockets than fixing problems. The problem with our current ethics system is that it is controlled by the very people who are unethical. The fox guarding the hen house may be constitutional but it isn't right. What is ironic is that Utah Republicans demand that Obama appoint an independent counsel to investigate the Sestak scandal, yet go crazy to think that an independent body should investigate their acts of corruption. Like Obama, the Utah Legislature would like to investigate their own corruption in order to sweep it under the carpet. Utahns are sick of this garbage, and I hope the anti-incumbent fever targets our own local representatives as well.

Speaking of school board elections, who do you support? Tim Osborne, Donna Barnes, John Spencer, Paula Hill. There are so many that I can't make up my mind.

Take for example a school board election. It's non partisan so no delegates look at these candidates, it just goes to the general public in a primary (to reduce to 2 candidates if necessary) or general election. The public knows nothing of these candidates so they just vote for the one with the most yard signs or in the case of the state school board race in our area, the person who's name appeared first on the ballot but did no campaigning except for passing out some cards at Walmart on a couple Saturday afternoons. People that don't study candidates shouldn't vote. That's why we elect delegates to dig in and represent us, and it's why we elect representatives in government to dig into an issue to know how to vote on that bill. The masses cannot be trusted to vote on legislation because they do not have the time to fully study the issue so they will invariably vote for whatever benefits them instead of looking for sound policy decisions.

I also take issue with your statement about “ultra right wing factions.” That is not the case. What you have are people who are fed up with government as it is operating in Washington and they love the constitution. It seems that so many people today think Tea Party goers are “ultra” conservatives and continue to label them, when really they are just normal citizens fed up with the federal policies of tax and spend. They know the burdens being laid on us today will affect their children and grandchildren and they want to put a stop to that. These groups are made up of Democrats and Republicans that understand what a sound fiscal policy is.

I and many others were shocked at the applause episode. It was totally inappropriate. However, the people in the caucus meetings weren't talking about THAT episode in rooting out “ethics” promoters, they were talking about the horrible citizens initiative that would have set up an unconstitutional oligarchy for the drafters of that bill. If you never read it, look it up and the power it gave the people who drafted the bill. It's the same thing that happens with the non-partisan races above. An ignorant electorate is told “hey this is for ethics in government” and so they vote for it (or sign on to the signature list as many people did in ignorance) and they find themselves with a change of government by a group of Kingmen.

Lewis, were you in favor of the Citizens Ethics Reform Initiative? Is that what you're referring to?