It would make the US Senate similar to the European Council or the Council of the European Union (not the same thing).
The Senate was intended to be an additional check in the federalist system. Gutting that check has (along with some other guttings) led to a stronger central government, which is a bad thing.
Pro,
I agree with you. The Founder Fathers requirement that states appoint Senators was symbolic of state rights and since they were appointed by the state their interest was in preserving state rights. Changing it back would be a good thing.
It’s the right thing to do. Which is to say, it will never happen.
USA only exists in the imagination anymore. For a while I thought we had a chance, but the tipping point seems to be farther and farther away in the rear view mirror. Not to say we shouldn’t try.
The reason the 17th Amendment was passed was because state legislatures, like Mike Dudgeon’s Georgia legislature, proved entirely too easy to buy.
Fortunately, the US space program shows us that the same does not apply to a directly elected US Senate…
So, instead, we’ve made it all one-stop shopping? I’m afraid that argument doesn’t hold water.
The point of having a state-controlled Senate was to place an additional and important check on federal power. While some think that an unlimited federal government is a good thing, that’s very short-sighted thinking.
So now, instead of having to buy an entire state legislature, you only need to buy 2 senators! Brilliant!
Just remember to repeal it after you launch them…
Speaking as someone who thinks the 17th Amendment was almost entirely harmful, I think that this would be a very bad idea.
Please explain to me how you will ever convince people to give up a personal vote. It would create such a backlash that conservatives wouldn’t be able to get elected for years.
The only reason this is being proposed is, first of all, because state legislators, precisely because of the 17th Amendment, are largely invisible and can get away with just about anything; and second, because there are an unfortunately large number of conservatives who have already privately thrown in the towel, and are just trying now to assign blame.
It’s like the inevitable call for the repeal of the 19th Amendment from people like Ann Coulter: she could do a hell of a lot more good by simply not appearing on Bill Maher’s show, but then she doesn’t really believe what she is saying. If people really do believe the 19th Amendment is so harmful–and, for the record, it contributes far less to leftism than the 15th Amendment, which Coulter would never have the guts to attack–then why not support piecemeal restrictions on the effectiveness of voting on gender issues, rather than committing political suicide? The reason, once again, is that it’s just calculated pandering to a particular audience, and not something Coulter really wants implemented.
Back to the 17th: rather than repealing it, a better plan, and almost certainly more politically feasible, would be increasing the size of the House of Representatives. This would make it harder to pass unpopular legislation like Obamacare, cap and trade, and gun control. It also would effectively cancel out the 17th, which makes legislation easier to pass in the Senate, by making it harder to pass in the House.
As I read the US constitution, increasing the size of the House would take no more than a law to be passed. It would indeed make it harder to buy bad legislation, but I don’t expect such a bill to get very far.
Ignoring the racist and bigoted ideas of restricting the vote to white males, increasing the size of the House of Representatives is a great idea.
That would mean more Democratic-leaning districts – places like Illinois wouldn’t loose seats. It would also mean more Democratic seats in places like Texas, and all that is required is to pass a law.
Ignoring the racist and bigoted ideas of restricting the vote to white males,
You’re not really good at reading for comprehension, are you?
That would mean more Democratic-leaning districts – places like Illinois wouldn’t loose seats. It would also mean more Democratic seats in places like Texas, and all that is required is to pass a law.
It would, however, strengthen Tea Party type Republicans at the expense of David Frum types, since it’s harder to slip a bad candidate past a smaller group of people. The Democrats would probably move right as well–you wouldn’t get many Tom Daschle/Ben Nelson types in red states, and there isn’t much room for them to move any farther left in the big cities. So the net effect is a move to the right, even if we have to put up with Jim Hightower in Congress.
Ken,
I agree. Greatly increasing the number of Representatives would make them both more responsive and representative of the public. And it wouldn’t need a Constitutional Amendment, merely the amendment of the Apportionment Act of 1911, which fixed the number at 435, to increase the number to 1000 starting with the 2015 Congress. So it is very doable.
I think it would be a very good idea to return a check of popilist inanities to the states. There is talk of a constitutional convention being called to propose and ratify a amendment for the state to exercise a veto power over laws passed by the inhabitantts of Mordor on the Patomic anyway. Repealing the 17th would have a similaar effect.
The point being something has to limit the feds involvement in things that are none of their businesss. When the rampart perfidy was at a state level you had a possibility of escape. With the growing Soviet State of America, no chance. How soon will the Feds decide for the rest of us to involuntarily buy California’s and Illionois’ debt? They are in a lot worse shape than Greece and I fail to see why any of us are obligated to encouage the wastrels in any of those places.
I’ve long believed that the 17th is even worse than the 16th.
Our Senate resurrects the old British tradition of rotten boroughs.
The House represented the people, and the Senate the states. If you think about it, what is the point of creating a form of government with two legislative bodies to be elected by the people. Is that not a duplication?
No, it is not duplication. Senators are elected by a statewide electorate and serve for a longer term. The latter is a difference that matters for all states (acting as a check against reactionary politcs), and the former is a difference that matters for the larger states (selecting for moderates with mass appeal).
The interest in making our government less democratic is somewhat shocking to me. The Senate is hardly perfect, but the 17th makes it better — because democracy makes government better. (Hey Curt, isn’t it self-evident, or something?)
—
In any case, I really wonder if those in favor of a repeal would be shooting themselves in the foot, in the short term at least. Say the 17th had been repealed in 2004. I suspect many of the 2010 Tea Party senators ( Toomy, Moran, Lee, Paul, Johnson, maybe Rubio) would not have been selected by their state representatives – they’d have been rejected in favor of safer blander choices. Meanwhile, I bet Barack Obama would have selected as a senator — he was popular with both parties in the sate senate, his colleagues often told him he should be in Washington, and several republican state senators endorsed him in his senate race.
More “democracy” doesn’t make government better any more than more sugar in coffee makes it better. Or, to channel Jonah Goldberg, more piss in my cornflakes.
And Obama’s popularity in the “sate senate” was more related to his countless “present” votes. (There’s a check against reactionary politics for you.)
Bob-1: I think you overstate how popular Obama was in the State legislature. He wasn’t a member of what John Kass (Chicago Tribune writer) calls “the combine” – a bipartisan group of legislators / crooks who cook up a lot of the deals in Illinois state politics.
If the legislature here had their druthers, Illinois would have two obscure and nominally Democratic US Senators.
Illinois has never, in my lifetime, had two “nominally Democratic US Senators.” If you consider Durbin, Simon, et al to be only “nominally” Democrat, it says something about you personally.
In most states, even the GOP Senators from Illinois would be far left.
Illinois has not had two nominally Democratic senators because they had to win a majority from the voters of the state.
The state legislature (and certainly the political powerbrokers) are frequently disappointed by the voters. See Peter Fitzgerald and Carole Mosely-Braun, two candidates greatly disliked by the powerbrokers.
Do you think the Bill of Rights should be up for democratic vote?
Not every “democratic” reform is even democratic. For instance, if we were to abolish the electoral college in favor of popular vote, the votes initially wouldn’t be much different than they are now in actual, real votes–but the recorded votes would show a huge Democrat landslide, because of the fraudulent votes created by big-city machines. You would not only get a left-wing government, you’d get a government headed by the most regressive leftists–big city machine thugs would be far more prevalent in the government than hippies from Vermont.
Having said that, I still oppose repeal, right now at least, of the 17th Amendment, since it would be counterproductive.
It’s like when the Right wingers call for a “Constitutional Convention.” Really? Now? With these people in charge?
Yeah, like people who ignore the current Constitution – or invent new clauses – will pay attention to a new one.
Since the Electoral College is elected by your “fraudulent votes from big-city machines” your argument is self-refuting.
Wouldn’t repeal of the 17th amendment be a step back towards a democratic republic qand a step away form democracy? As one who thinks that the inability to do much in Washington unless there is a large consensus is a prime feature, not a bug, I think making it harder for the fleeting whim of the mob and masses to enact laws is a good thing.
I personally know my state legislatures. They show up to the local summer community picnics and I can let them know my opinions and have some influence on them. Local equals more individual influence. If state legislatures voted on senators, at least the states would not be fighting DC anywhere near as much.
Why not amend the 17th to allow the states to decide which method they want? Democrats are all for choice aren’t they?
The 17th amendment does a lot to undo the Federalist system of a small central government and powerful states. Before this, states could recall senators that were voting for unconstitutional bills. Now, nothing happens to these senators. We vote directly for the congressmen and ignore the fact that the states are supposed to partake in the system of checks and balances. Now, we rely on the federal government to keep itself in check. I wrote a primer on the 17th amendment here: The 17th amendment should be repealed.
It would make the US Senate similar to the European Council or the Council of the European Union (not the same thing).
The Senate was intended to be an additional check in the federalist system. Gutting that check has (along with some other guttings) led to a stronger central government, which is a bad thing.
Pro,
I agree with you. The Founder Fathers requirement that states appoint Senators was symbolic of state rights and since they were appointed by the state their interest was in preserving state rights. Changing it back would be a good thing.
It’s the right thing to do. Which is to say, it will never happen.
USA only exists in the imagination anymore. For a while I thought we had a chance, but the tipping point seems to be farther and farther away in the rear view mirror. Not to say we shouldn’t try.
The reason the 17th Amendment was passed was because state legislatures, like Mike Dudgeon’s Georgia legislature, proved entirely too easy to buy.
Fortunately, the US space program shows us that the same does not apply to a directly elected US Senate…
So, instead, we’ve made it all one-stop shopping? I’m afraid that argument doesn’t hold water.
The point of having a state-controlled Senate was to place an additional and important check on federal power. While some think that an unlimited federal government is a good thing, that’s very short-sighted thinking.
So now, instead of having to buy an entire state legislature, you only need to buy 2 senators! Brilliant!
Just remember to repeal it after you launch them…
Speaking as someone who thinks the 17th Amendment was almost entirely harmful, I think that this would be a very bad idea.
Please explain to me how you will ever convince people to give up a personal vote. It would create such a backlash that conservatives wouldn’t be able to get elected for years.
The only reason this is being proposed is, first of all, because state legislators, precisely because of the 17th Amendment, are largely invisible and can get away with just about anything; and second, because there are an unfortunately large number of conservatives who have already privately thrown in the towel, and are just trying now to assign blame.
It’s like the inevitable call for the repeal of the 19th Amendment from people like Ann Coulter: she could do a hell of a lot more good by simply not appearing on Bill Maher’s show, but then she doesn’t really believe what she is saying. If people really do believe the 19th Amendment is so harmful–and, for the record, it contributes far less to leftism than the 15th Amendment, which Coulter would never have the guts to attack–then why not support piecemeal restrictions on the effectiveness of voting on gender issues, rather than committing political suicide? The reason, once again, is that it’s just calculated pandering to a particular audience, and not something Coulter really wants implemented.
Back to the 17th: rather than repealing it, a better plan, and almost certainly more politically feasible, would be increasing the size of the House of Representatives. This would make it harder to pass unpopular legislation like Obamacare, cap and trade, and gun control. It also would effectively cancel out the 17th, which makes legislation easier to pass in the Senate, by making it harder to pass in the House.
As I read the US constitution, increasing the size of the House would take no more than a law to be passed. It would indeed make it harder to buy bad legislation, but I don’t expect such a bill to get very far.
Ignoring the racist and bigoted ideas of restricting the vote to white males, increasing the size of the House of Representatives is a great idea.
That would mean more Democratic-leaning districts – places like Illinois wouldn’t loose seats. It would also mean more Democratic seats in places like Texas, and all that is required is to pass a law.
Ignoring the racist and bigoted ideas of restricting the vote to white males,
You’re not really good at reading for comprehension, are you?
That would mean more Democratic-leaning districts – places like Illinois wouldn’t loose seats. It would also mean more Democratic seats in places like Texas, and all that is required is to pass a law.
It would, however, strengthen Tea Party type Republicans at the expense of David Frum types, since it’s harder to slip a bad candidate past a smaller group of people. The Democrats would probably move right as well–you wouldn’t get many Tom Daschle/Ben Nelson types in red states, and there isn’t much room for them to move any farther left in the big cities. So the net effect is a move to the right, even if we have to put up with Jim Hightower in Congress.
Ken,
I agree. Greatly increasing the number of Representatives would make them both more responsive and representative of the public. And it wouldn’t need a Constitutional Amendment, merely the amendment of the Apportionment Act of 1911, which fixed the number at 435, to increase the number to 1000 starting with the 2015 Congress. So it is very doable.
I think it would be a very good idea to return a check of popilist inanities to the states. There is talk of a constitutional convention being called to propose and ratify a amendment for the state to exercise a veto power over laws passed by the inhabitantts of Mordor on the Patomic anyway. Repealing the 17th would have a similaar effect.
The point being something has to limit the feds involvement in things that are none of their businesss. When the rampart perfidy was at a state level you had a possibility of escape. With the growing Soviet State of America, no chance. How soon will the Feds decide for the rest of us to involuntarily buy California’s and Illionois’ debt? They are in a lot worse shape than Greece and I fail to see why any of us are obligated to encouage the wastrels in any of those places.
I’ve long believed that the 17th is even worse than the 16th.
Our Senate resurrects the old British tradition of rotten boroughs.
The House represented the people, and the Senate the states. If you think about it, what is the point of creating a form of government with two legislative bodies to be elected by the people. Is that not a duplication?
No, it is not duplication. Senators are elected by a statewide electorate and serve for a longer term. The latter is a difference that matters for all states (acting as a check against reactionary politcs), and the former is a difference that matters for the larger states (selecting for moderates with mass appeal).
The interest in making our government less democratic is somewhat shocking to me. The Senate is hardly perfect, but the 17th makes it better — because democracy makes government better. (Hey Curt, isn’t it self-evident, or something?)
—
In any case, I really wonder if those in favor of a repeal would be shooting themselves in the foot, in the short term at least. Say the 17th had been repealed in 2004. I suspect many of the 2010 Tea Party senators ( Toomy, Moran, Lee, Paul, Johnson, maybe Rubio) would not have been selected by their state representatives – they’d have been rejected in favor of safer blander choices. Meanwhile, I bet Barack Obama would have selected as a senator — he was popular with both parties in the sate senate, his colleagues often told him he should be in Washington, and several republican state senators endorsed him in his senate race.
More “democracy” doesn’t make government better any more than more sugar in coffee makes it better. Or, to channel Jonah Goldberg, more piss in my cornflakes.
And Obama’s popularity in the “sate senate” was more related to his countless “present” votes. (There’s a check against reactionary politics for you.)
Bob-1: I think you overstate how popular Obama was in the State legislature. He wasn’t a member of what John Kass (Chicago Tribune writer) calls “the combine” – a bipartisan group of legislators / crooks who cook up a lot of the deals in Illinois state politics.
If the legislature here had their druthers, Illinois would have two obscure and nominally Democratic US Senators.
Illinois has never, in my lifetime, had two “nominally Democratic US Senators.” If you consider Durbin, Simon, et al to be only “nominally” Democrat, it says something about you personally.
In most states, even the GOP Senators from Illinois would be far left.
Illinois has not had two nominally Democratic senators because they had to win a majority from the voters of the state.
The state legislature (and certainly the political powerbrokers) are frequently disappointed by the voters. See Peter Fitzgerald and Carole Mosely-Braun, two candidates greatly disliked by the powerbrokers.
Do you think the Bill of Rights should be up for democratic vote?
Not every “democratic” reform is even democratic. For instance, if we were to abolish the electoral college in favor of popular vote, the votes initially wouldn’t be much different than they are now in actual, real votes–but the recorded votes would show a huge Democrat landslide, because of the fraudulent votes created by big-city machines. You would not only get a left-wing government, you’d get a government headed by the most regressive leftists–big city machine thugs would be far more prevalent in the government than hippies from Vermont.
Having said that, I still oppose repeal, right now at least, of the 17th Amendment, since it would be counterproductive.
It’s like when the Right wingers call for a “Constitutional Convention.” Really? Now? With these people in charge?
Yeah, like people who ignore the current Constitution – or invent new clauses – will pay attention to a new one.
Since the Electoral College is elected by your “fraudulent votes from big-city machines” your argument is self-refuting.
Wouldn’t repeal of the 17th amendment be a step back towards a democratic republic qand a step away form democracy? As one who thinks that the inability to do much in Washington unless there is a large consensus is a prime feature, not a bug, I think making it harder for the fleeting whim of the mob and masses to enact laws is a good thing.
I personally know my state legislatures. They show up to the local summer community picnics and I can let them know my opinions and have some influence on them. Local equals more individual influence. If state legislatures voted on senators, at least the states would not be fighting DC anywhere near as much.
Why not amend the 17th to allow the states to decide which method they want? Democrats are all for choice aren’t they?
The 17th amendment does a lot to undo the Federalist system of a small central government and powerful states. Before this, states could recall senators that were voting for unconstitutional bills. Now, nothing happens to these senators. We vote directly for the congressmen and ignore the fact that the states are supposed to partake in the system of checks and balances. Now, we rely on the federal government to keep itself in check. I wrote a primer on the 17th amendment here: The 17th amendment should be repealed.