Time to repeal the 17th Amendment?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

in times prior to this, your seat on the senate was an appointment by the gov. there was never a time you were guaranteed 6 years cause you could be pulled as the gov wanted it for that particular state.

now that they're voted in they can control it in a manner we're seeing pretty abused these days. if we repeal it then we also in effect kill the need for term limits as the Gov would likely change them as they changed as well.

thoughts?

(not changing my original post but adding that i've been corrected on how they were appointed - see thread)

And, the 16th.

And....the 19th.....

 

[Avatar4321]

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

in times prior to this, your seat on the senate was an appointment by the gov. there was never a time you were guaranteed 6 years cause you could be pulled as the gov wanted it for that particular state.

now that they're voted in they can control it in a manner we're seeing pretty abused these days. if we repeal it then we also in effect kill the need for term limits as the Gov would likely change them as they changed as well.

thoughts?

I've advocated it for years.

The problem was the system before got corrupted by people buying their way into senate seats. Now with every penny digitized and tracked, it would be much more difficult for state legislatures to be bribed into sending a piece of shit to DC.


.

People are buying their way into senate seats anyway

 

[Darkwind]

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

in times prior to this, your seat on the senate was an appointment by the gov. there was never a time you were guaranteed 6 years cause you could be pulled as the gov wanted it for that particular state.

now that they're voted in they can control it in a manner we're seeing pretty abused these days. if we repeal it then we also in effect kill the need for term limits as the Gov would likely change them as they changed as well.

thoughts?

Believe it or not, Senators need to learn a lot of stuff. There are a million details about this subject and that they have to know in order to propose legislation, argue it intelligently and vote on it. What you're proposing would probably result in a lot of one term appointments. I'm not sure that's enough time for them to really get good at their jobs.

i'm proposing giving power back to the states where i do feel it belongs. i don't discount the "other stuff" that needs to be learned in order to do the job properly, but how much of that "other stuff" is *because* of what was created back when this amendment changed everything?

it would be a long process yes. but i do believe we'd be better for it in the end.

Okay, who in each state would do the chosing?

State legislatures.

And who would decide the candidates to chose from? Would the legislature just put up whomever they wanted, or would the people primary a few "finalists" ?

Here is an opportunity for you to learn something.

Research how they did it prior to the passing of the 17th.

 

[iceberg]

Believe it or not, Senators need to learn a lot of stuff. There are a million details about this subject and that they have to know in order to propose legislation, argue it intelligently and vote on it. What you're proposing would probably result in a lot of one term appointments. I'm not sure that's enough time for them to really get good at their jobs.

i'm proposing giving power back to the states where i do feel it belongs. i don't discount the "other stuff" that needs to be learned in order to do the job properly, but how much of that "other stuff" is *because* of what was created back when this amendment changed everything?

it would be a long process yes. but i do believe we'd be better for it in the end.

Okay, who in each state would do the chosing?

State legislatures.

And who would decide the candidates to chose from? Would the legislature just put up whomever they wanted, or would the people primary a few "finalists" ?

Here is an opportunity for you to learn something.

Research how they did it prior to the passing of the 17th.

i put that on me also - i have a lot to learn about this.

 

[g5000]

i'm proposing giving power back to the states where i do feel it belongs. i don't discount the "other stuff" that needs to be learned in order to do the job properly, but how much of that "other stuff" is *because* of what was created back when this amendment changed everything?

it would be a long process yes. but i do believe we'd be better for it in the end.

Okay, who in each state would do the chosing?

State legislatures.

And who would decide the candidates to chose from? Would the legislature just put up whomever they wanted, or would the people primary a few "finalists" ?

Here is an opportunity for you to learn something.

Research how they did it prior to the passing of the 17th.

i put that on me also - i have a lot to learn about this.

See post 40.

 

[danielpalos]

James Madison made the following argument for electing by state legislatures in Federalist Paper No. 62:

It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

In other words, Madison was saying this method reinforced the authority of the states over the federal government.

So why did our country feel it necessary to change that?

First, it was widely believed that state legislators were easily bought. There were several cases of such corruption which fed into this belief. And one only has to pick up a local newspaper to see this is still true today.

Second, just ponder how often the US Senate is deadlocked today by partisans. The same was true of state legislatures.

Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked, in 20 different states; in one extreme example, a Senate seat for Delaware went unfilled from 1899 until 1903. The business of holding elections also caused great disruption in the state legislatures, with a full third of the Oregon House of Representatives choosing not to swear the oath of office in 1897 due to a dispute over an open Senate seat. The result was that the legislature was unable to pass legislation that year.

By the time the 17th amendment was a viable proposal, 33 states had already changed their election laws so that their Senators were chosen by popular vote. 31 state legislatures had passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional amendment allowing popular vote, and ten Republicans who opposed an amendment lost their seats. 27 states were calling for a constitutional convention, with 31 being the threshold.


But there is yet more to this than meets the eye. Much more.

You see, in the past voter district lines were based on geography, not population. Voting districts were given equal geographic size, the result of which was rural votes were seriously overweighted. There might be 20 times as many people in an urban voting district, but they were given one representative in the state legislature, and the rural district was also given one representative in the state legislature even though it had much fewer people in it.

In such a scheme, one can see how the votes of rural voters, who tend to be conservatives, greatly outweigh the votes of urban voters (who tend to be liberal).

Three Supreme Court decisions changed all that. These are known as the "one man, one vote" decisions. District lines are now based on population.


But...US Senate districts (the states) are still based on geography. And there are still more rural states than heavily urbanized states.

You can see where this is going.

This means, on the Senate district level, rural states' votes continue to be more heavily weighted than urbanized states with the result that 27 state legislatures are Republican controlled, while only 17 state legislatures are Democratic controlled. The rest are split.

Consequently, the immediate result of repealing the 17th amendment would result in 54 GOP Senators, 34 Democratic Senators, with the rest being a tossup. The Republicans would gain a permanent majority in the Senate.

I believe that is the real purpose of the drive to repeal the 17th amendment, with the restoring-states-authority-over-the-federal-government argument just the thinnest of smokescreens.

An empty seat is a form of term limits. And, the legislature which failed to seat their senator was subject to the electorate.

Now, Senators are deemed part of the federal government, not a voice of the States.

 

[Darkwind]

James Madison made the following argument for electing by state legislatures in Federalist Paper No. 62:

It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

In other words, Madison was saying this method reinforced the authority of the states over the federal government.

So why did our country feel it necessary to change that?

First, it was widely believed that state legislators were easily bought. There were several cases of such corruption which fed into this belief. And one only has to pick up a local newspaper to see this is still true today.

Second, just ponder how often the US Senate is deadlocked today by partisans. The same was true of state legislatures.

Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked, in 20 different states; in one extreme example, a Senate seat for Delaware went unfilled from 1899 until 1903. The business of holding elections also caused great disruption in the state legislatures, with a full third of the Oregon House of Representatives choosing not to swear the oath of office in 1897 due to a dispute over an open Senate seat. The result was that the legislature was unable to pass legislation that year.

By the time the 17th amendment was a viable proposal, 33 states had already changed their election laws so that their Senators were chosen by popular vote. 31 state legislatures had passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional amendment allowing popular vote, and ten Republicans who opposed an amendment lost their seats. 27 states were calling for a constitutional convention, with 31 being the threshold.


But there is yet more to this than meets the eye. Much more.

You see, in the past voter district lines were based on geography, not population. Voting districts were given equal geographic size, the result of which was rural votes were seriously overweighted. There might be 20 times as many people in an urban voting district, but they were given one representative in the state legislature, and the rural district was also given one representative in the state legislature even though it had much fewer people in it.

In such a scheme, one can see how the votes of rural voters, who tend to be conservatives, greatly outweigh the votes of urban voters (who tend to be liberal).

Three Supreme Court decisions changed all that. These are known as the "one man, one vote" decisions. District lines are now based on population.


But...US Senate districts (the states) are still based on geography. And there are still more rural states than heavily urbanized states.

You can see where this is going.

This means, on the Senate district level, rural states' votes continue to be more heavily weighted than urbanized states with the result that 27 state legislatures are Republican controlled, while only 17 state legislatures are Democratic controlled. The rest are split.

Consequently, the immediate result of repealing the 17th amendment would result in 54 GOP Senators, 34 Democratic Senators, with the rest being a tossup. The Republicans would gain a permanent majority in the Senate.

I believe that is the real purpose of the drive to repeal the 17th amendment, with the restoring-states-authority-over-the-federal-government argument just the thinnest of smokescreens.

An empty seat is a form of term limits. And, the legislature which failed to seat their senator was subject to the electorate.

Now, Senators are deemed part of the federal government, not a voice of the States.

Which is why it needs to be restored to what it origianlly was intended to be.

 

[OldLady]

I think, Iceberg, the gridlock is a result of fighting between the two major parties more than disagreement between states. I don't see how giving the power back to state legislatures would solve that problem.

how much of this is driven by people who've been a senator for so long now? if we have someone who's only bitching at people 24x7 while a senator from what i understand, they can be removed.

the fighting is a result of a lot of games and wordsmithing on both sides. if people know doing that will end up in being out of office, then i would *think* it would slow it down quite a bit.

Removing Senators who bitch at people 24x7 is done with the vote. I know six years is a long time to wait--to me four years to elect a different President seems like an eternity at this point. But the FIRST thing that would involve is being offered candidates who DON'T spout nothing but obstruction. I suppose a law saying that voters could hold a special election every two years to de-install a Senator might help. Would that be better?

 

[OldLady]

Believe it or not, Senators need to learn a lot of stuff. There are a million details about this subject and that they have to know in order to propose legislation, argue it intelligently and vote on it. What you're proposing would probably result in a lot of one term appointments. I'm not sure that's enough time for them to really get good at their jobs.

i'm proposing giving power back to the states where i do feel it belongs. i don't discount the "other stuff" that needs to be learned in order to do the job properly, but how much of that "other stuff" is *because* of what was created back when this amendment changed everything?

it would be a long process yes. but i do believe we'd be better for it in the end.

This strong drive to give the power back to the states on all important legislation would result in a total mess; it would be a patchwork of conflicting laws that would confuse everyone. We have totally open, fluid boundaries between states and very high traffic between them. I don't see this working well.

can you be more specific on how it would result in a mess? again i'm more concerned about long term than short. short term we seem hellbent on killing each other in slow moving stupidity of counter moves that are bringing us down as a whole. if we don't stop that we're literally killing our country.

something has to give. "business as usual" isn't doing it anymore.

I see your concern and I don't disagree with it.
Giving the power back to the states to chose our Congressional representatives is just throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
There has to be a way to resolve the gridlock in D.C. Perhaps continuing to make our dissatisfaction with it known will make a difference.

That’s just it, they wouldn’t be picking our Congressional representatives. They would be picking representatives of the state government.

Our congressional representatives would still be chosen by us in each house seat

I don't understand what you're saying.

 

[iceberg]

I think, Iceberg, the gridlock is a result of fighting between the two major parties more than disagreement between states. I don't see how giving the power back to state legislatures would solve that problem.

how much of this is driven by people who've been a senator for so long now? if we have someone who's only bitching at people 24x7 while a senator from what i understand, they can be removed.

the fighting is a result of a lot of games and wordsmithing on both sides. if people know doing that will end up in being out of office, then i would *think* it would slow it down quite a bit.

Removing Senators who bitch at people 24x7 is done with the vote. I know six years is a long time to wait--to me four years to elect a different President seems like an eternity at this point. But the FIRST thing that would involve is being offered candidates who DON'T spout nothing but obstruction. I suppose a law saying that voters could hold a special election every two years to de-install a Senator might help. Would that be better?

dunno. on the surface i'd say no but again, i'm reading up on how it was before and why it was changed.

 

[g5000]

James Madison made the following argument for electing by state legislatures in Federalist Paper No. 62:

It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

In other words, Madison was saying this method reinforced the authority of the states over the federal government.

So why did our country feel it necessary to change that?

First, it was widely believed that state legislators were easily bought. There were several cases of such corruption which fed into this belief. And one only has to pick up a local newspaper to see this is still true today.

Second, just ponder how often the US Senate is deadlocked today by partisans. The same was true of state legislatures.

Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked, in 20 different states; in one extreme example, a Senate seat for Delaware went unfilled from 1899 until 1903. The business of holding elections also caused great disruption in the state legislatures, with a full third of the Oregon House of Representatives choosing not to swear the oath of office in 1897 due to a dispute over an open Senate seat. The result was that the legislature was unable to pass legislation that year.

By the time the 17th amendment was a viable proposal, 33 states had already changed their election laws so that their Senators were chosen by popular vote. 31 state legislatures had passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional amendment allowing popular vote, and ten Republicans who opposed an amendment lost their seats. 27 states were calling for a constitutional convention, with 31 being the threshold.


But there is yet more to this than meets the eye. Much more.

You see, in the past voter district lines were based on geography, not population. Voting districts were given equal geographic size, the result of which was rural votes were seriously overweighted. There might be 20 times as many people in an urban voting district, but they were given one representative in the state legislature, and the rural district was also given one representative in the state legislature even though it had much fewer people in it.

In such a scheme, one can see how the votes of rural voters, who tend to be conservatives, greatly outweigh the votes of urban voters (who tend to be liberal).

Three Supreme Court decisions changed all that. These are known as the "one man, one vote" decisions. District lines are now based on population.


But...US Senate districts (the states) are still based on geography. And there are still more rural states than heavily urbanized states.

You can see where this is going.

This means, on the Senate district level, rural states' votes continue to be more heavily weighted than urbanized states with the result that 27 state legislatures are Republican controlled, while only 17 state legislatures are Democratic controlled. The rest are split.

Consequently, the immediate result of repealing the 17th amendment would result in 54 GOP Senators, 34 Democratic Senators, with the rest being a tossup. The Republicans would gain a permanent majority in the Senate.

I believe that is the real purpose of the drive to repeal the 17th amendment, with the restoring-states-authority-over-the-federal-government argument just the thinnest of smokescreens.

An empty seat is a form of term limits. And, the legislature which failed to seat their senator was subject to the electorate.

Now, Senators are deemed part of the federal government, not a voice of the States.

What happened across the country was legislative deadlock. Not just at the federal level, but at the state level, too. And some states spent years without representation in the US Senate.

It got so bad that a majority of states passed election laws to directly elect their Senators by popular vote.

And that is what will happen if we repeal the 17th Amendment. It will end up being reinstated again when the same old chaos erupts. There was clearly enough chaos to cause a super majority of states to pass the 17th Amendment, and there would be again.

I will provide an interesting couple of thought experiments in my next post.

 

[OldLady]

James Madison made the following argument for electing by state legislatures in Federalist Paper No. 62:

It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

In other words, Madison was saying this method reinforced the authority of the states over the federal government.

So why did our country feel it necessary to change that?

First, it was widely believed that state legislators were easily bought. There were several cases of such corruption which fed into this belief. And one only has to pick up a local newspaper to see this is still true today.

Second, just ponder how often the US Senate is deadlocked today by partisans. The same was true of state legislatures.

Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked, in 20 different states; in one extreme example, a Senate seat for Delaware went unfilled from 1899 until 1903. The business of holding elections also caused great disruption in the state legislatures, with a full third of the Oregon House of Representatives choosing not to swear the oath of office in 1897 due to a dispute over an open Senate seat. The result was that the legislature was unable to pass legislation that year.

By the time the 17th amendment was a viable proposal, 33 states had already changed their election laws so that their Senators were chosen by popular vote. 31 state legislatures had passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional amendment allowing popular vote, and ten Republicans who opposed an amendment lost their seats. 27 states were calling for a constitutional convention, with 31 being the threshold.


But there is yet more to this than meets the eye. Much more.

You see, in the past voter district lines were based on geography, not population. Voting districts were given equal geographic size, the result of which was rural votes were seriously overweighted. There might be 20 times as many people in an urban voting district, but they were given one representative in the state legislature, and the rural district was also given one representative in the state legislature even though it had much fewer people in it.

In such a scheme, one can see how the votes of rural voters, who tend to be conservatives, greatly outweigh the votes of urban voters (who tend to be liberal).

Three Supreme Court decisions changed all that. These are known as the "one man, one vote" decisions. District lines are now based on population.


But...US Senate districts (the states) are still based on geography. And there are still more rural states than heavily urbanized states.

You can see where this is going.

This means, on the Senate district level, rural states' votes continue to be more heavily weighted than urbanized states with the result that 27 state legislatures are Republican controlled, while only 17 state legislatures are Democratic controlled. The rest are split.

Consequently, the immediate result of repealing the 17th amendment would result in 54 GOP Senators, 34 Democratic Senators, with the rest being a tossup. The Republicans would gain a permanent majority in the Senate.

I believe that is the real purpose of the drive to repeal the 17th amendment, with the restoring-states-authority-over-the-federal-government argument just the thinnest of smokescreens.

It's always nice to have a fact or two thrown into the mix. Thanks.

 

[sakinago]

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

in times prior to this, your seat on the senate was an appointment by the gov. there was never a time you were guaranteed 6 years cause you could be pulled as the gov wanted it for that particular state.

now that they're voted in they can control it in a manner we're seeing pretty abused these days. if we repeal it then we also in effect kill the need for term limits as the Gov would likely change them as they changed as well.

thoughts?

(not changing my original post but adding that i've been corrected on how they were appointed - see thread)

I’m down, the 17th is one of those little known amendments, but one that has had a huge impact on how our system works

 

[OldLady]

Believe it or not, Senators need to learn a lot of stuff. There are a million details about this subject and that they have to know in order to propose legislation, argue it intelligently and vote on it. What you're proposing would probably result in a lot of one term appointments. I'm not sure that's enough time for them to really get good at their jobs.

i'm proposing giving power back to the states where i do feel it belongs. i don't discount the "other stuff" that needs to be learned in order to do the job properly, but how much of that "other stuff" is *because* of what was created back when this amendment changed everything?

it would be a long process yes. but i do believe we'd be better for it in the end.

Okay, who in each state would do the chosing?

State legislatures.

And who would decide the candidates to chose from? Would the legislature just put up whomever they wanted, or would the people primary a few "finalists" ?

Here is an opportunity for you to learn something.

Research how they did it prior to the passing of the 17th.

Who the fuck are you, my social studies teacher? If someone is going to propose a radical change in how we are represented, I see no problem in asking how that is to be accomplished. It would not have to go back to the way it was, necessarily.

 

[iceberg]

i'm proposing giving power back to the states where i do feel it belongs. i don't discount the "other stuff" that needs to be learned in order to do the job properly, but how much of that "other stuff" is *because* of what was created back when this amendment changed everything?

it would be a long process yes. but i do believe we'd be better for it in the end.

Okay, who in each state would do the chosing?

State legislatures.

And who would decide the candidates to chose from? Would the legislature just put up whomever they wanted, or would the people primary a few "finalists" ?

Here is an opportunity for you to learn something.

Research how they did it prior to the passing of the 17th.

Who the fuck are you, my social studies teacher? If someone is going to propose a radical change in how we are represented, I see no problem in asking how that is to be accomplished. It would not have to go back to the way it was, necessarily.

well there goes civil discourse.

hey, i put that same "task" on me also as i don't know near enough about the amendment, what it changed nor why it was changed.

asking how is great. that's what i'm doing and til now it was good conversation. but while asking is great, i add my own research and education to the list or how can i effectively argue either direction? i'd be repeating bullets from people i trust and/or like and that's far too common as it is. i created this thread to learn the very questions you're asking now and someone saying "do some research" isn't a bad idea.

 

[iceberg]

Okay, who in each state would do the chosing?

State legislatures.

And who would decide the candidates to chose from? Would the legislature just put up whomever they wanted, or would the people primary a few "finalists" ?

Here is an opportunity for you to learn something.

Research how they did it prior to the passing of the 17th.

i put that on me also - i have a lot to learn about this.

See post 40.

sorry. i put you on ignore long ago cause you usually dispense insults like pez candy. i did go back and read it and appreciate the viewpoints / insight. those types of responses are what i am looking for so i appreciate the effort to present your views in such a manner.

 

[Darkwind]

i'm proposing giving power back to the states where i do feel it belongs. i don't discount the "other stuff" that needs to be learned in order to do the job properly, but how much of that "other stuff" is *because* of what was created back when this amendment changed everything?

it would be a long process yes. but i do believe we'd be better for it in the end.

Okay, who in each state would do the chosing?

State legislatures.

And who would decide the candidates to chose from? Would the legislature just put up whomever they wanted, or would the people primary a few "finalists" ?

Here is an opportunity for you to learn something.

Research how they did it prior to the passing of the 17th.

Who the fuck are you, my social studies teacher? If someone is going to propose a radical change in how we are represented, I see no problem in asking how that is to be accomplished. It would not have to go back to the way it was, necessarily.

By repealing the 17th Amendment, the Constitution would revert back to what it was BEFORE the passing of that Amendment. There was a process and it worked well for over a hundred years. That process would be retained.

Hey, if you want to remain ignorant, knock yourself out. I personally could not care less.

BTW...this is NOT a radical change. The passage of the 17th WAS the radical change.

 

[Avatar4321]

James Madison made the following argument for electing by state legislatures in Federalist Paper No. 62:

It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

In other words, Madison was saying this method reinforced the authority of the states over the federal government.

So why did our country feel it necessary to change that?

First, it was widely believed that state legislators were easily bought. There were several cases of such corruption which fed into this belief. And one only has to pick up a local newspaper to see this is still true today.

Second, just ponder how often the US Senate is deadlocked today by partisans. The same was true of state legislatures.

Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked, in 20 different states; in one extreme example, a Senate seat for Delaware went unfilled from 1899 until 1903. The business of holding elections also caused great disruption in the state legislatures, with a full third of the Oregon House of Representatives choosing not to swear the oath of office in 1897 due to a dispute over an open Senate seat. The result was that the legislature was unable to pass legislation that year.

By the time the 17th amendment was a viable proposal, 33 states had already changed their election laws so that their Senators were chosen by popular vote. 31 state legislatures had passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional amendment allowing popular vote, and ten Republicans who opposed an amendment lost their seats. 27 states were calling for a constitutional convention, with 31 being the threshold.


But there is yet more to this than meets the eye. Much more.

You see, in the past voter district lines were based on geography, not population. Voting districts were given equal geographic size, the result of which was rural votes were seriously overweighted. There might be 20 times as many people in an urban voting district, but they were given one representative in the state legislature, and the rural district was also given one representative in the state legislature even though it had much fewer people in it.

In such a scheme, one can see how the votes of rural voters, who tend to be conservatives, greatly outweigh the votes of urban voters (who tend to be liberal).

Three Supreme Court decisions changed all that. These are known as the "one man, one vote" decisions. District lines are now based on population.


But...US Senate districts (the states) are still based on geography. And there are still more rural states than heavily urbanized states.

You can see where this is going.

This means, on the Senate district level, rural states' votes continue to be more heavily weighted than urbanized states with the result that 27 state legislatures are Republican controlled, while only 17 state legislatures are Democratic controlled. The rest are split.

Consequently, the immediate result of repealing the 17th amendment would result in 54 GOP Senators, 34 Democratic Senators, with the rest being a tossup. The Republicans would gain a permanent majority in the Senate.

I believe that is the real purpose of the drive to repeal the 17th amendment, with the restoring-states-authority-over-the-federal-government argument just the thinnest of smokescreens.

Republicans are likely to have at least 54 seats anyway. That seems a lot of work for little yield.

The advantages of repeal for the health of our republic are numerous:

Restore the check on the Feds

Empower the states

Weaken the influence of special interest groups on the Fed

I would argue that it would also hurt the duopoly. Third parties could focus State legislature campaigns and might even get some senate representation this way.

 

[iceberg]

Okay, who in each state would do the chosing?

State legislatures.

And who would decide the candidates to chose from? Would the legislature just put up whomever they wanted, or would the people primary a few "finalists" ?

Here is an opportunity for you to learn something.

Research how they did it prior to the passing of the 17th.

Who the fuck are you, my social studies teacher? If someone is going to propose a radical change in how we are represented, I see no problem in asking how that is to be accomplished. It would not have to go back to the way it was, necessarily.

By repealing the 17th Amendment, the Constitution would revert back to what it was BEFORE that passing of that Amendment. There was a process and it worked well for over a hundred years. That process would be retained.

Hey, if you want to remain ignorant, knock yourself out. I personally could not care less.

BTW...this is NOT a radical change. The passage of the 17th WAS the radical change.

but not without reasons that should be taken into consideration before simply removing it, it would seem.

 

[g5000]

Here is the real reason there is a movement on the Right to repeal the 17th Amendment:

After the 2016 election, 32 state legislatures were controlled by Republicans in both houses. Without the 17th Amendment, we would therefore probably have AT LEAST 64 Republicans in the US Senate, and only 36 Democrats at most.

The Republicans would be able to ram through alcoholic judges, Muslim bans, gay marriage bans, Jim Crow laws, etc.

That's why you hear talk about the 17th Amendment.

This has nothing to do with denying a state's equal suffrage. That's just a smoke screen.



Let's do another thought experiment.

Imagine all the urban dwellers in America were concentrated in one state, which I shall call Eschaton. And let's say they make up 52% of the entire population of the country.

Without the 17th Amendment, that would mean 49 percent of the population would send 98 Republican Senators to Washington while the great state of Eschaton would send just 2.

That is some serious overweightage of rural voters!

But down in the humble House, thanks to districting based on population, there are 226 Democratic Representatives and 208 Republicans.

The 49 rural states would have a hard time screwing over the state of Eschaton, thanks to the Democratic majority in the House.

On the flip side, let's go with the popular vote, and send 52 Democrats and 48 Republicans to the Senate.

Now a single state could fuck over the other 49 since it controls both houses of Congress.

How is that fair?


ETA: In actuality, 80 percent of Americans live in urban areas.