The People's Senate

OpinionJournal ^ | 8/27/07 | James Taranto

[Political Junkie Too]

The 17th Amendment [provides] for popular election of U.S. senators, and its repeal is just the sort of interesting proposal we like to mull over in a contrarian spirit. But in the end we favor popular election of senators, and we do so in a contrarian spirit.

In the original constitutional scheme, the House of Representatives was the only popularly elected part of government. State legislatures chose U.S. senators, and in many states also picked presidential electors. The idea was that the House would represent popular passions while the Senate would act, in a metaphor attributed to George Washington, as a cooling saucer.

Some argue that the 17th Amendment tipped the balance too much in favor of popular democracy, but in our view there has been a countervailing trend: gerrymandering. State legislatures lost the power to select senators, but have used the redistricting process to assert a high degree of control over the selection of House members.

Legislators in most states draw districts to protect incumbents or to maximize their own party's representation. If a state loses a seat in reapportionment, the legislature may target a specific House member for elimination. In 2003 Texas Republicans, having just captured the state Legislature, replaced their Democratic predecessors' gerrymander with one of their own, changing Texas' house delegation from majority Democratic to majority GOP.

The result of... this is that House elections are actually less democratic--that is, sensitive to changes in public opinion--than Senate ones. In fact, as Jay Cost noted last year, since the 17th Amendment was ratified, there has never been an election in which the House changed parties and the Senate didn't--even though all House seats but only one-third of Senate seats are up every two years.

So we'll stick with the 17th Amendment until someone comes up with a nationwide solution to gerrymandering.

[Political Junkie Too]

I wonder if Taranto is missing the bigger picture. The 17th amendment is not just a contrarian opposition to gerrymandering.

Consider the nature of the two chambers. Spending bills originate in the House, so perhaps gerrymandering affects how federal funding gets started. But the Senate has "advice and consent" powers over Executive appointments, which is a completely different function.

Taranto doesn't even mention the cost of 33 of the most expensive elections that occur every two years. In exchange for gerrymandering, Taranto seems happy with campaign finance abuses. Eliminate Senate elections, and you eliminate the need for massive campaign financing. That is, repealing the 17th amendment is the true campaign finance reform.

To treat the popular election of Senators as a "fix" for gerrymandering House districts seems to me to be a non sequitur -- one does not follow from the other.

-PJ

[Natchez Hawk]

How about just abolishing the Senate.

[Sherman Logan]

Eliminate Senate elections, and you eliminate the need for massive campaign financing. That is, repealing the 17th amendment is the true campaign finance reform.

You think focusing that amount of money on state legislators rather than state voters is going to improve things? LOL

[hinckley buzzard]

I wonder if Taranto is missing the bigger picture

By a mile. It is apparent that he has not the slightest idea why the Senators were originally appointed by States. I guess "federalism" is now an "inoperative" word languishing in the dusty pages of history.

[Political Junkie Too]

You think focusing that amount of money on state legislators rather than state voters is going to improve things? LOL

No, I think that it will eliminate the national party bloc politics. The organization necessary to continue running the national parties for the purposes of funding congressional races is impractical, and would stop. Presidential races are too far apart to sustain fundraising for four years, and Senators won't be out campaiging all over the country anymore.

-PJ

[MAexile]

In 2003 Texas Republicans, having just captured the state Legislature, replaced their Democratic predecessors’ gerrymander with one of their own, changing Texas’ house delegation from majority Democratic to majority GOP.

Texas as a poster child for gerrymandering?

Try Massachusetts. What the Texas GOP tried to do is nothing compared to what the Mass. Dims did some years back.

[mo]

“I wonder if Taranto is missing the bigger picture...”

He-and his new boss-Rupert Murdoch- most certainly have the bigger picture...and everybody who’s bought and paid for a Senator in DC is scared to death about the long term prospects of that investment if the 17th is repealed. The need for repeal will be in direct proportion to how hard they all start squealing...

[mo]

Did you ping JimRob with this..?

[Political Junkie Too]

PING for your comments.

-PJ

[G8 Diplomat]

How about just abolishing the Senate.

I like that idea.

Especially because it would mean that Kerry, Schumer, Kennedy, Leahy, Reid, Levin, Obama, Hillary, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Boxer, McCain, Nelson, Stabenow, Snowe, Landrieu, Mikulski, Warner, Webb, Cardin, and anyone who I missed would have no influence in the federal government!

[Sherman Logan]

Massive amounts of funding go into Senate rather than House races because a Senator is somthing upwards of a 12 times better investment than a Rep.

Three times as long in office, and less than 1/4 as many Senators.

House races, OTOH, come along so frequently that it almost isn’t worthwhile investing in them. The result is that there is a good deal less turnover in the House than in the Senate. This is not necessarily a good thing.

[DustyMoment]

Taranto not only has this one wrong . . . . he has it VERY wrong!!!

Passage of the 17th Amendment fundamentally altered our form of government from a Representative Republic to a democracy. It gave us mob rule.

When the senate was appointed by the state legislatures, state rights were preserved and the senate focused on the larger issues of commerce, peace, etc. - kind of what the Founding Fathers had envisioned when they wrote the Constitution.

Make no mistake, the Constitution is the most brilliantly written, thoughtfully conceived document written in modern times. The Founding Fathers were very aware of what they were doing and thought these issues out quite carefully.

Since passage of the 17th Amendment, States Rights (and the 10th Amendment) have largely been steamrollered by the feds and relegated to the rubbish bin. The senate has become beholden to the same contributors and PACs as the House - the very situation that the Founding Fathers had hoped to avoid with their carefully architected Representative Republic.

John McVain has received a lot of publicity by trying to remove the influence of money from the political fabric (LOL!!!). All he managed to do was to abridge OUR First Amendment Rights. If McVain, Feingold, et al, were sincere, all they would have to do is submit a bill to repeal the 17th Amendment.

It’s a dreck law, unnecessary and has damaged our republic to the extent that we have achieved the crappy government that we have today.

Taranto needs to go back and do a little more homework on this one!!!

[x]

To treat the popular election of Senators as a "fix" for gerrymandering House districts seems to me to be a non sequitur -- one does not follow from the other.

Non-sequitur to be sure. It looks like you've read him the wrong way around.

Taranto's saying that gerrymandering House districts was the state legislatures' "fix" for the popular election of senators -- that is to say, it's the way that they've revenged themselves on the federal government and the public for the loss of their power.

I don't think he's quite right. What he's talking about is a pretty peripheral aspect of the question. But he's right that popular election of Senators is here to stay.

When popular election is the justification for power, an indirectly elected body loses power. So if Senators were chosen by the states the Senate would become weaker, like the Canadian Senate, the British House of Lords, or the German Bundesrat.

Let the states choose the Senators and the Senate loses authority and power. And if the measure goes through, the money contributed to Senate campaigns now would make its way into campaigns for state legislatures. A lot would also slip into state legislators' pockets illegally.

[xjcsa]

Taranto doesn't even mention the cost of 33 of the most expensive elections that occur every two years. In exchange for gerrymandering, Taranto seems happy with campaign finance abuses. Eliminate Senate elections, and you eliminate the need for massive campaign financing. That is, repealing the 17th amendment is the true campaign finance reform.

The amount of money spent on political campaigns is less than trivial compared with the amount of money they spend in office. I say the same thing to you that I used to say about John McCain (until he got his way): campaign finance isn't half as important as people make it out to be.

[x]

Try Massachusetts. What the Texas GOP tried to do is nothing compared to what the Mass. Dims did some years back.

You are correct.

The Barneyfrankamander stretches from Boston southwestwards and then turns southeastwards making its way to New Bedford. In some places it's only one town wide -- in two or three places it's only about a couple of miles wide.

The trick was to connect the liberal strongholds of Newton and Brookline (Barney's very liberal constituency near Boston) with the overwhelmingly Democrat city of New Bedford, and to divide GOP voters so that a Republican couldn't be elected (that's why the third and tenth districts follow the same pattern as Barney's fourth).

I don't know how things are in other states, but it's no accident that the word "gerrymander" was coined in Massachusetts.

[JamesP81]

That was an absolutely brilliant post.

[Political Junkie Too]

Are we arguing or agreeing?

There is massive funding going into Senate races because: 1) they are statewide, not district-wide, 2) Senators have much more influence on the President than do Congressmen (advice and consent on appointments), 3) their terms are longer (as you point out).

I'm saying that if you eliminate the Senate elections, the money dries up. Are you saying that the money will just go elsewhere? If so, why do you think so? I don't think so because there are 435 House races every two years, and it's not economical to fund those races from national coordinating committees. The only reason that they do so today for "battleground" House races is because of the infrastructure that's in place to support the Senate fundraising.

Lack of turnover in the House is not due to lack of funding for those races, it is due to gerrymandering (as Taranto points out). House races, on their own, could not support a national bloc infrastructure for too long.

-PJ

[LexBaird]

Masssachussetts has nothing on CA.

Get a load of the 23rd.

[Political Junkie Too]

It looks like you've read him the wrong way around. Taranto's saying that gerrymandering House districts was the state legislatures' "fix" for the popular election of senators -- that is to say, it's the way that they've revenged themselves on the federal government and the public for the loss of their power.

Except that the timing is all wrong.

The term "gerrmander" was named after Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, who in 1812 approved a rigged boundary shaped like a salamander, hence the term 'gerrymander'.

This was 100 years before the 17th amendment was passed.

-PJ

[Sherman Logan]

I’m not sure whether we’re arguing or agreeing.

The problem is the enormous impact the government has on business and therefore that business must have some input on what Congress and the President do, if only in self-defense. Donating to House races is too dilute to be very effective, and the presidential race is too winner take all.

So a great deal of money has gone into Senate races.

I suspect that if this mechanism of influence is closed off that business and other interested groups will find other, even less savory ways to influence senators.