Time to repeal the 17th Amendment?

[Darkwind]

An additional benefit to having State Legislatures electing a US Senator is that it removes from Washington, D.C. a boatload of special interest money since each Senator would be required to answer to his state for his stance and votes.

 

[g5000]

Once again:

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 10 Republicans who opposed an amendment lost their seats. 27 states were calling for a constitutional convention, with 31 being the threshold.

That is why we have the 17th Amendment. It was extremely popular, and anyone who went against the idea lost their asses.

 

[g5000]

An additional benefit to having State Legislatures electing a US Senator is that it removes from Washington, D.C. a boatload of special interest money since each Senator would be required to answer to his state for his stance and votes.

A state legislator is much easier to bribe. And cheaper.

 

[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.

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.

Would that still happen now with our more modern, Information Age? Who cares if right wingers get upset and don't seat State senators.

 

[danielpalos]

An additional benefit to having State Legislatures electing a US Senator is that it removes from Washington, D.C. a boatload of special interest money since each Senator would be required to answer to his state for his stance and votes.

A state legislator is much easier to bribe. And cheaper.

The public sector is public for a reason.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Virginia has a Republican controlled legislature, and yet both of their US Senators are Democrats.

What are the odds we would see that without the 17th Amendment?

None, and rightfully so.

Those two clowns have done nothing of benefit to Virginia.

 

[Avatar4321]

Virginia has a Republican controlled legislature, and yet both of their US Senators are Democrats.

What are the odds we would see that without the 17th Amendment?

Who knows what we see if we fundamentally changed the system back to as it originally was

 

[Pete7469]

Why don't we just focus on that problem instead of handing our decisions over to another bunch of partisans?

You mean kill all the lawyers and start over?
.

 

[g5000]

Virginia has a Republican controlled legislature, and yet both of their US Senators are Democrats.

What are the odds we would see that without the 17th Amendment?

Who knows what we see if we fundamentally changed the system back to as it originally was

Well, you might not know, but anyone with a lick of common sense knows that a Republican legislature would send two Republicans to the US Senate.

We would not see a state like Virginia with a Republican legislature and two Democratic US Senators.

It's funny you don't know that.

 

[g5000]

For whatever reason, the people of Virginia want a Republican legislature and two Democratic Senators.

And the people are the ultimate power, not the states or the federal government.

 

[Avatar4321]

An additional benefit to having State Legislatures electing a US Senator is that it removes from Washington, D.C. a boatload of special interest money since each Senator would be required to answer to his state for his stance and votes.

A state legislator is much easier to bribe. And cheaper.

Are you seriously trying to argue that it’s easier and cheaper to bribe a dozen or more people then it is to bribe one?

 

[JWBooth]

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)

This comes up now and again and those whose voices are loudest in shouting it down are those who worship the state with the greatest fervor.

Repeal the 17th, and while we are at it the 16th, 19th, 23rd and 26th amendments as well.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why don't we just focus on that problem instead of handing our decisions over to another bunch of partisans?

You mean kill all the lawyers and start over?
.

I object

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why don't we just focus on that problem instead of handing our decisions over to another bunch of partisans?

You mean kill all the lawyers and start over?
.

I object

Yeah. They're not ALL bad.

 

[danielpalos]

Virginia has a Republican controlled legislature, and yet both of their US Senators are Democrats.

What are the odds we would see that without the 17th Amendment?

None, and rightfully so.

Those two clowns have done nothing of benefit to Virginia.

State seating of State senators provides recourse to State solutions.

 

[Avatar4321]

Virginia has a Republican controlled legislature, and yet both of their US Senators are Democrats.

What are the odds we would see that without the 17th Amendment?

Who knows what we see if we fundamentally changed the system back to as it originally was

Well, you might not know, but anyone with a lick of common sense knows that a Republican legislature would send two Republicans to the US Senate.

We would not see a state like Virginia with a Republican legislature and two Democratic US Senators.

It's funny you don't know that.

What’s funny is that you don’t seem to understand that empowering stare legislators changes the dynamics of state elections. I have no clue how such a change will effect turn out and interest in state races and thus I have no clue which party will win the state legislatures with such dynamics. Neither do you.

So no you can’t predict how it will turn out when you substantively later the balance of power

 

[Avatar4321]

For whatever reason, the people of Virginia want a Republican legislature and two Democratic Senators.

And the people are the ultimate power, not the states or the federal government.

Except the Senate is supposed to represent the States and NOT the people

 

[danielpalos]

For whatever reason, the people of Virginia want a Republican legislature and two Democratic Senators.

And the people are the ultimate power, not the states or the federal government.

Except the Senate is supposed to represent the States and NOT the people

the People in their State government obligation.

 

[iceberg]

Once again:

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 10 Republicans who opposed an amendment lost their seats. 27 states were calling for a constitutional convention, with 31 being the threshold.

That is why we have the 17th Amendment. It was extremely popular, and anyone who went against the idea lost their asses.

well right now the business of appointing a SCOTUS is creating great disruption. yet we take it today as business as usual and for the other side to "beat" when it's their turn.

 

[my2¢]

I don't support repealing the 17th amendment. I hold this opinion primarily because the source of information regarding our state representatives is much more limited than it is to our U.S. Senators. Thus the only ones I see benefitting from the repeal would be the political parties.