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.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I like the Framer's design, and I wish that there were a good answer to the gerrymander issue. Something, perhaps, along the lines of an Electoral College for representatives, but structured so as to allocate the representation in the House in line with the total vote in the state.

IOW, a body elected by the people of the state which, effectively, would reapportion the Congressional Districts retroactively such that (in a large state) everyone would have one Democratic and one Republican representative, but in the small states with only one or two representatives, there would have to be some threshold below which a party would get no representatives.

In any event the presidential Electoral College, say nothing of the Senate, have too much interest behind them to be abolished. But if you wanted to increase the clout of the states in Washington, one way would be to make senators the running mates of governors - and possibly make governors into senators after their governorships ended. You'd have to change senator's terms from six years, in order to make it workable.

[Political Junkie Too]

You think that's something, you should see the CA-10 and CA-11.

When the Democrats and Republicans got together in 2000 to redistrict, they had one goal in common -- to eliminate Gary Condit's district to get him out of politics (Condit represented Modesto). Richard Pombo had CA-11 (which went from Tracy to Manteca to Modesto) and Ellen Tauscher had CA-10 (which had Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, Danville, Walnut Creek, Concord).

The California legislature moved Tauscher north over the river to include Fairfield, and moved Pombo west and south to include Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Danville, and way south past the end of the bay.

However, the CA-10 dips down with an odd southern bulge to include the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Labs. So, Tauscher kept oversight over the nuclear labs.

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

Schwarzenegger did try to do something about gerrymandering with his special election in 2005, but he got spanked pretty hard by the teacher's union and he's taken a hard turn to the left since then.

There are laws to prevent gerrymandering to dilute minority voting rights so that you can't split a regional majority into two minorities in separate districts in order to dilute their power. But I don't think that popularly electing Senators is a fix for gerrymandering the House.

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

The influence is mis-placed.

The approach to federalism is like turning a large cargo ships at sea -- you make the turn now but it shows up miles from now.

The way to influence the Senate is to get more involved in local state politics. You begin by influencing your assemblymen and state senators. These are the people that: 1) set the Congressional districts, and 2) appoint the Senators. If you don't like what they do, you vote in new local politicians more to your liking. It takes time, but that is how the "ship of state" is supposed to work. If you are a business, you're in it for the long-term and can afford the look far ahead.

Not only did the 17th amendment eliminate states' power over the federal government, it broke the link between local politics at the grass-roots level and federal politics via the states.

-PJ

[gcruse]

I never did understand the anti-17th thing. And since I’ve been a Taranto fan for years, I’m pleased to accept his take on the matter and move on.

[Political Junkie Too]

Perhaps we should look at the 17th amendment in terms of the recent push to eliminate the Electoral College.

The President is not the ruler of the people, he is the head of the federation between the states. The state governors are the leaders of the people, the legislatures of the states determine the population districts within the states to be represented, and the people within those districts elect their representatives to the House chamber in Congress.

Just as Senators were to be selected by state legislatures to represent the states in the Congress, Presidents were to also be selected by the states to oversee common defense, foreign affairs, and relations between the states.

The 17th amendment replaced state appointment of Senators with popular election (making them "super-House" members), and repealing the Electoral College will replace state selection of the President with popular election, too.

There was a tapestry woven through the People, the States, and the Federal Government. Eliminating the state appointment of Senators was the first step towards tearing apart that tapestry, and eliminating the Electoral College would be next step. The final step would be to eliminate states altogether.

-PJ

[gcruse]

“The final step would be to eliminate states altogether.”

Guess what? That was done in 1935 when FDR decreed a farmer who grew and consumed his own corn had an effect on interstate commerce and thus fell under the NRA. Most recently, the same illogic was criticized by Justice Thomas in a case where it was decided someone who grew and smoked his own weed came under the Commerce clause, ie federal jurisdiction, also.

When the administration tells states they may not enforce federal immigration laws even as the feds were not enforcing them either, the republic is dead, Fred, and removing the direct election of senators will have bugger all to do with restoring it.

[Political Junkie Too]

Imagine how it would have been had the Senators been appointed by the states from within their own legislatures instead of being elected by an easily confused public. Presidents wouldn't be able to as easily make decrees like that if Congress were more closely aligned with the states than with the President's party.

-PJ

[BillyBoy]

>> I never did understand the anti-17th thing. And since I’ve been a Taranto fan for years, I’m pleased to accept his take on the matter and move on. <<

I never did understand the "abolish the 17th amendment" love fest on FR. It's they're all for the concept of big government as long it occurs at the state level INSTEAD of the federal level. I'm for less government at the the federal, state, and LOCAL levels. Take power away from those elites. Government exists to do what people cannot do for themselves. I can choose my Senators on my own just fine, thank you, I don't need a bunch of gerrymander hacks in the legislature deciding it for me. Put power in the hands of the individual, NOT the state.

The only thing the "abolish the 17th amendment" crowd has to harp on all day is "it's not the original Constitution", "it wasn't what the framers envisioned". SO WHAT? The "original" Constitution says the state legislature picks the Senators, and it also says slavery is fine and only white male property owners can vote for President. That's what we have amendments for. Because it's not 1789 anymore, elections are different than 200 years ago, and we have an easier time courting the voters in statewide races.

Should we have abolish the 2nd amendment while we're at it? After all, it became law in 1791, two years AFTER the states ratified the Constitution WITHOUT a national gurantee for a right to keep and bear arms. Tsk, tsk. Let's go back to the "original" Constitution, the one the "Founders" ratified. I'm sure those wonderful government bureaucrats at the state level know better than the little people who should be "allowed" to have guns, right?

It's the liberals who want universal health care and fawn about how great it in "progressive" countries that use such a system like Cuba and Canada. Great, move there and enjoy the benefits. For those who think it's so great having an unelected "upper house" consisting of party hacks who hold office for life and answer only to other politicians, may I suggest England or Canada? That's a much more "Traditionalist" system that will give you a legislature like they had in the good 'ol 17th century. Of course the Canadians and Brits are currently trying to "reform" their upper house because they're getting sick of those unelected leeches sucking at the government teat, but heck, you can go there and let them know much better their system than the foolish Americans who have the power to throw out their Senators.

The silliest argument I heard is we need the state legislatures to pick our Senators because right now the "big cities" control the election in a popular vote. Obviously whoever thinks the state legislature is controlled by the locals hasn't been anywhere near any "state legislature" I've seen. State Legislatures are notoriously corrupted and most people who choose to make careers there do so because they'd never a have a prayer getting elected to higher office in a contested district.

Here in Illinois, Chicago has about 1/4th the state's population. In 1998, we narrowly elected conservative Republican Peter Fitzgerald to the U.S. Senate, because the rest of the state was able to narrowly outvote Crook County by giving Fitzgerald margins of 60% or more downstate. Meanwhile, in the legislature, it's gerrymandered so Chicago controls EVERYTHING. Probably 50% or more of the seats are rigged so Chicago decides who "represents" the seat, instead of a statewide popular vote where Chicago has only 25% of the vote. Until 2004, we had a Republican State Senate. Did "the people" choose to oust them and install socialist nut Emil Jones (D-Chicago) as Senate Majority Leader? LMAO! Please. The Democrats won the right to redraw the district lines, and we had a bunch of government bureaucrats (namely, a retired former Mayor of Chicago who was serving on the Illinois Supreme Court at the time), redraw the State Senate so all the suburbs were stuck with Chicago RATs. My district HAD a conservative Republican, it was redraw to be 80% suburban and 20% Chicago, but the Chicago neighborhoods they tossed us in with are some of the most liberal in the city, so they vote about 90% Democrat. The rest of us are stuck with a RAT State Senator so matter HOW we vote. And in Illinois, the people in the "state legislature" who make decisions consist of just four individuals in the "leadership". The rest of the legislators are powerless.

Abolishing the 17th amendment for my state means Chicago hand-picks a bunch of Daley machine hacks to be Senators for life. Period. It's bad enough Chicago controls everything at the state level here, the last thing we need to gurantee them selection of our federal officials as well. A person like Fitzgerald would never have a prayer of being appointed as long as the "state legislature" is rigged to give Chicago all the power.

If you want to see an even worse scenario, take a good look at who controls the "state legislatures" in a lot of these "conservative" states down south, like Alabama. Those "red states" have yellow-dog Democrat legislatures that have rigged the system to be in power for decades. In Arkansas, about 2/3rds of the state legislature seats choosen by the "the people" are unopposed every election year. They've oiled the system very well for their own. Say bye bye to Senators who actually represent their state, like Jeff Sessions. Say hello to crooked RAT elites for life.

A british-style House of Lords in the U.S. What an awful concept. Might as well "go back" to the "original" plan for "the American colonies" while we're at it.

[gcruse]

We’re just the ‘easily confused public’, Billyboy.

[Publius]

...and only white male property owners can vote for President.

That was never in the Constitution. Voting qualifications were the province of the states until 1825, when a federal law was passed banning property qualifications for federal elections. Then the 26th Amendment finished that off for good in the Sixties.

[Political Junkie Too]

I have no illusions that the people selected would be different than today. I just want to get the big money out of politics, and I see eliminating 33 statewide elections every two years as a way to do it, instead of some kind of McCain-Feingold scheme that only silences you and me.

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

We are such a small minority that it's not worth noticing at the ballot box. Senators just have to run misleading advertisements in the weeks before the election and then they can forget about us for another six years.

What did you think of the AARP TV campaign in 2006, "Don't Vote!"?

-PJ

[BillyBoy]

>> Perhaps we should look at the 17th amendment in terms of the recent push to eliminate the Electoral College <<

Apples and Oranges. The electoral college was invented to compromise between the founders who wanted a President directly elected by the people, and the founders who follow your "vision" of the U.S. Senate by having a bunch of political elites run things and appoint the President without any say from the little people. They had the exact same idea you are advocated for the U.S. Senate -- we'll have Congress pick the President FOR us, and if people don't like it, that's too bad, they can just vote against their local Congressman next time (never-mind if they're in a safe district that's rigged for one party, or if their Congress DOES select the right person for President but has absolutely no power)

Fortunately saner voices prevailed and now we are able to indirectly elect the President via the population vote, rather than have Congress do it for us regardless if 99.999999% "the people" opt for a different candidate.

If you were to advocate abolishing the electoral college and replace it with the kind of system you are advocated for the Senate (political elites appoint someone for life), I would absolutely oppose the idea, regardless of how many "founders" believed having an appointed President was a brilliant plan.

An appointed upper house is an aciquited idea whose time has passed in the 21st century. Every nation that's fallen behind the times and is still stuck with this system has been trying in vain to abolish it, only to be blocked by the elites in the upper house that don't want to lose their cushy jobs for life.

Stephen Harper, like myself, is a conservative who believes in smaller governemnt whenever possible, and cutting out the middle man and government waste. Now that they are in power, Canada's conservative government has been trying mightily to replace their elite government-appointed Senate with an "electoral college" style method of choosing Senators by having the Prime Minister advise the Governor General to appoint persons selected by a province's population POPULAR vote (which I would certainly support), but sadly the Senate has blocked it so the Canadians are still stuck with a bunch of Liberal Party elites who got the job 30 years ago, thumbing their nose at the public. England is also stuck with an appointed upper house that nobody in the country can stand, and has also tried to come up with an "electoral college" style compromise in which some of those twits actually have to be elected by popular vote. On March 7, 2007, the House of Commons voted, in principle, in favor of replacing the Lords with an elected chamber, but their compromise fell flat because they can't decide whether it should 80%, 50%, or 30% elected members. In the meantime, they're stuck with nearly 800 political hacks on the government payroll who do as they please with no checks and balences.

You are not advocating an "electoral college" style compromise for the Senate (indirectly elected by popular vote), which England and Canada would love to enact right now. You are advocating the FAILED system they CURRENTLY have, in which another group of politicians have free reign to appoint someone for life, and the only way "the people" can do anything about it is try, in vain, to vote against one person in that body in the next election cycle.

That system does not work, was a proven failure when Abaraham Lincoln tried to get "elected" the Senate by getting people to support his candidates in the legislature, and America was right to abolish it.

I look forward to the day Canada and England follow our lead and enter the 21st century.

If you love their system so much, perhaps you should try convincing them how great having government of the "enlightened few" is.

[BillyBoy]

>> I have no illusions that the people selected would be different than today. I just want to get the big money out of politics, and I see eliminating 33 statewide elections every two years as a way to do it <<

Unless you also decide Governors and Presidents should also be appointed, that won't solve the problem. I can point to plenty of non-Senatoral statewide races that require candidates to raise zillions just to be competitive. Try running for Governor of California or New York sometime.

Having an appointed Senate would get the "big money" out of politics? Please. Elliot Spitzer would have a field day.

In Russia, they do have a system where goverment elites appoint governors (they briefly elected governors when Russia became a Republic but now they're back to the "original idea" of appointed Governors envisioned by the founders of the USSR). Maybe you should talk to Vladmir Putin, I'm sure he'll tell you it's wonderful.

[BillyBoy]

>> That was never in the Constitution <<

Neither was the second amendment. That's why it's called an amendment, rather than looking it Article 2 for a "right to bear arms". When the Constitution was "originally" ratified, there was no national guarantee to keep and bear arms. Those wonderful state legislatures got to decide whether the little people should be "allowed" to have guns.

I'm sure the fans of "states rights" really love the idea of letting "the states" decide for themselves whether or not you can have a gun, right? Wouldn't want that pesky federal government to tell a state that really wants to ban guns that they're not allowed to.

In any case, the fact states could ban guns really alarmed some people who supported the new Constitution, so they decided to change the law so gun rights were guaranteed at the federal level.

Following the logic of the "abolish the 17th amendment because it wasn't originally in the Constitution" crowd, we should abolish that pesky 1791 amendment about guns so we can get back to the original Constitution "the founders" enacted.

[BillyBoy]

>> Schwarzenegger did try to do something about gerrymandering with his special election in 2005, but he got spanked pretty hard by the teacher's union and he's taken a hard turn to the left since then. <<

Schwarzenegger got spanked pretty hard by the electorate, since he tried something pretty similar to what you have in mind for the Senate, but it involved letting judges have absolute reign over us instead of state legislators.

The California General Assembly currently decides on all the redistricting lines for their U.S. Congressional districts. Arnie, for some bizarre reason, wanted to hand the power to "retired federal judges" instead. Arnie insisted these unelected bureaucrats are "nonpartisan", which is truly naive to think a judge is above party leanings. Naturally California voters realizing that having crooked judges instead of crooked legislators deciding the Congressional districts amounting to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, so the proposal was voted down.

Illinois often has our district lines redrawn by "retired judges" when the legislature deadlocks, and the judges have proven to no better at it. The current judge-drawn map reeks of funny shaped places designed to promote special interests and guarantee election of party incumbents.

The sensible solution to gerrymandering is having an truly impartial computer draw the lines with the only criteria being the districts are equal in population and compact as possible, but nobody will do that except Iowa (makes too much sense for the "state legislatures" to do what's best for the state)

Incidentally, here is Iowa's computer-designed congressional delegation. Note the difference when you take political hacks out of the process:

Screw state legislatures and big government mentality. The less government control we have over our lives, the better.

[BillyBoy]

And in comparison to the above map of Iowa (which took the state legislature OUT of the process), here is what happens when you trust your friendly ol' state legislature to do what's best for the state:

Ah, those state legislatures. Gotta love 'em. We must be very blessed that Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan (D-Chicago) cares soooo much for Illinois' interests and not just his indicted pals on the south side of the city.

[roamer_1]

Eliminate Senate elections, and you eliminate the need for massive campaign financing.

While I agree with your statement, I draw your attention to the reverse:

If the Senate is appointed rather than elected, how do we keep it from being our very own House of Lords (not that it is far from it now)?

[BillyBoy]

>> 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. <<

Obviously whether the 17th amendment is in place or not doesn't affect the ability to gerrymander Congressional districts (or state legislative districts) for that matter, but it's true that as long as you have statewide elections for U.S. Senators, politicians can't gerrymander the results. Unless politicians find a way to redraw the shape of an entire state every 10 years, U.S. Senate elections will continue to be much more competitive than House elections. There are some states that are so heavily Republican or Democrats, they are effectively "gerrymandered" for one party (try getting elected a Democrat in Idaho, or a Republican in Conn.), but I'd say that either party is able to win in most states. In contrast, I'd say roughly 85% of house seats are predetermined for one party .

You say that the argument doesn't follow with gerrymandering because they can still gerrymander whether the 17th amendment is in place or not, I say the arguement that abolishing Senate races will take the big money out of politics doesn't follow because they will continue to have hugely expensive gubernatoral and presidential races. You'd have to abolish ALL statewide elections to prevent that.

Furthermore, to say the 17th amendment should be abolished because it's not what "the founders" envisioned is a complete non-starter for me and a really lame excuse when you realize what kind of stuff made it in the "original" Constitution. If that's your reasoning for abolishing the 17th amendment, then we better abolish the rest of 'em too, so we can do things like legalize slavery, deny Indians citizenship, and give John Kerry the Vice-Presidency (under the plan "the founders" put into the Constitution, the runner-up in the presidential race becomes Vice-President. Don't you want to give John Kerry the Vice-Presidency because James Madison' rules entitles him to it?)

The Constitution is amended for a reason. For instance, I'm for retrocession of Washington, D.C. back to Maryland. I can give you many reasons why, but the fact that it's what "the founders" originally did is not a factor at all. I could care less what Button Gwenneth wanted to do with Washington D.C.

[hosepipe]

Democracy is MOB Rule.. by mobsters.. always in every iteration..
Democracy ALWAYS causes socialism..
Socialism is just a symptom of democracy..
BUT demcracy is the political social disease that causes socialism..
Democracy and socialism go together..

When socialism advances then democracy has advanced..
Socialism is Slavery by Giverment.. ALWAYS..

[BillyBoy]

>> If the Senate is appointed rather than elected, how do we keep it from being our very own House of Lords (not that it is far from it now)? <<

Bingo. It's like how the liberals whine endlessly about how wonderful America would be if we had universal health care and free education for all, but when you at every country that's tried that, all their "universal health care" systems are crap and an embarrassment to their country. You know WHY they take away the power from those upper houses? Because nobody trusts those appointed-hacks to enact good laws.

A bunch of conservative freepers think having an appointed upper-house would be such a wonderful way to fix all the problems with the current Senate, but when you look at every country that has an appointed upper-house, they're all crap and an embarrassment to their country.

Anyone here wanna defend what a GREAT job the House of Lords is doing with British government? Anyone? ::crickets chirp::

Why do they think we passed the 17th amendment in the first place? Could it be that NOBODY (other than the hacks that appointed them) was happy with the kind of people holding office under the old system?

[roamer_1]

A bunch of conservative freepers think having an appointed upper-house would be such a wonderful way to fix all the problems with the current Senate [...]

I'm not particularly against the idea, BillyBoy, just offering an honest question. I agree that it is important to make senators more beholden to the state they are supposed to represent.

Perhaps a fast-track recall system where the people elect the senator(s) but the state legislature has some participating authority... If the duty and conduct of the senator was a matter of state law, the state could recall the offending senator for cause and appoint another (from the same party if necessary).

The people could then choose between the recalled senator and the appointed senator in a special election to keep the state honest...

Dunno, just a thought.

[BillyBoy]

Interesting idea Roamer. I'm for allowing recalls and TEMPORARY appointments to fill a vacancy (which Governors already do, and if the voters don't like it they can throw out the appointed Senator), but I'm absolutely against giving politicians carte blanch power to appoint whoever they want to the Senate, which the idea that if we don't like it, the only option we have is to vote against our local state legislator, whether or not he had an input on who the party bosses in the state picked (and believe me, my state rep. wouldn't be an "insider". He is too socially conservative for the Dem elite).

Politicians picking other politicians is always something to be wary of (Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers, et. al.), and this office is way too important to trust to be a bunch of powerful twits in state government.

It will be a cold day in hell before I let Mike Madigan & Emil Jones (those are our "local" state legislative "leaders" here in Illinois) pick my Senator for life. We're already living in a dictatorship in Illinois, I'd rather not have to experience it on the federal level. At least under the current system, those of us here have a SLIM chance of defeating the Chicago machine and throwing Durbin out. You abolish the 17th amendment, and slim leaves town. We're absolutely powerless to do anything, unless by some miracle the legislature is redraw in 2012 in a way where Republicans could theoretically win one of the houses. Dick Durbin would have authority to do absolutely ANYTHING without fear of retaliation at the ballot box. He could rape a nun on TV and the slime in the state legislature would still support him.

You want to reform the system, may I humbly suggest an idea my dad proposed, changing the federal laws so that the Senator's own state decides what their salary will be, rather than letting them vote themselves a raise. That is totally within the spirit of the 17th amendment and would ensure Senators who poorly preform for their state get punished for it, and it would mean that Senators from little, rural states who don't do anything aren't being paid zillions of dollars in pensions from all American taxpayers.

We need to empower the individual more, not the government. Indeed, I'd be open to amending the Constitution to do the opposite of what Political Junkie wants -- that is, I'd take the only branch of government left that's fully appointed (Judicial) and consider an amendment to have an ELECTED U.S. Supreme Court.

Here in Illinois, we ELECT our state Supreme Court, rather than have the governor pick 'em, and the system has worked well. Our Republican judges are conservatives rather than RINOs. The Governor appointed a judge a while back to fill out a vacancy, and when he was up for retention, he was defeated by a more conservative judge in the primary. I think on the national level, voters would have at least avoided the likes of David Souter and John Paul Stevens. When judges have to actually campaign for the job, at least you'll know what you're getting. No stealth candidates then.

Keep power in the hands of the people, not the government. Keep the 17th.

[Political Junkie Too]

Okay, I'll play.

Apples and Oranges. The electoral college was invented to compromise between the founders who wanted a President directly elected by the people, and the founders who follow your "vision" of the U.S. Senate by having a bunch of political elites run things and appoint the President without any say from the little people.

Why use scare quotes to refer to my "vision?" Why not use the conventional "'so-called' vision?" Right off the bat, your dismissive tone taints your argument to me.

If you were to advocate abolishing the electoral college and replace it with the kind of system you are advocated for the Senate (political elites appoint someone for life), I would absolutely oppose the idea, regardless of how many "founders" believed having an appointed President was a brilliant plan.?

First of all, I'm not advocating that and I don't know where you got the idea that I am. I'm demonstrating that the Constitution recognizes the interests of three distinct groups: 1) the Federal Government, 2) the Several States, and 3) We, The People. There are several threads through the Constitution that define the interplay between these groups. Change one or more of them, and the integrity of the entire system falls apart.

An appointed upper house is an aciquited idea whose time has passed in the 21st century.

You're stuck in an analogy based on a Monarchy from Divine Intervention and a political structure based on family heredity. That is not our system. The "appointed upper house" that you refer to holds its title based on family heredity and feudal property ownership. Our system is based on local governmental structures, chosen by the people, who send representatives to a central federal government, chosen by both the local people and the local governments.

Furthermore, the size of the nations are orders of magnitudes different. The Parliamentary system from Great Britain would not scale up to fit the United States.

England is also stuck with an appointed upper house that nobody in the country can stand, and has also tried to come up with an "electoral college" style compromise in which some of those twits actually have to be elected by popular vote.

Where did that Upper House originate from? Was there a local goverment of the People that sent them to Parliament? You're straying into "apples and oranges" territory.

You are not advocating an "electoral college" style compromise for the Senate (indirectly elected by popular vote), which England and Canada would love to enact right now. You are advocating the FAILED system they CURRENTLY have, in which another group of politicians have free reign to appoint someone for life, and the only way "the people" can do anything about it is try, in vain, to vote against one person in that body in the next election cycle.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm advocating:

• An independent collection of local populations, each of which shares geographical separations from the other local governments in a way that encourages local interaction and discourages interaction across populations. Let's call them States, that have their own local governments ruled by Governors.
• These State government's will be made up of people who elect representatives from their locales. Each State can determine how they wish to organize. It's interesting to note that each state has an elected Assemnbly and Senate (the names may change across states), but the sizes of the governed territories are small as compared to the entire union of States.
• The States agree to combine in order to provide for common interests. The People of the States will continue be governed locally, but will agree on a super-structure to govern interests between the states and between the union of states and foreign states. Let's call this super-structure the Federation of United States.
• The State governments will send representatives to the Federation to protect their interests in a governing body. Each State will send an equal number of representatives. Let's call this body the Senate.
• The People of the States will also send independent representatives to the Federation, elected by each locale. The number of popular representatives will be based on the number of people residing in each state. More populous States will have more representatives of the People.
• The States will also choose a leader to oversee the procedures of the Federation. Let's call this overseer the Executive. Each State can choose for itself the method of recommending the Executive.

Unless you also decide Governors and Presidents should also be appointed, that won't solve the problem. I can point to plenty of non-Senatoral statewide races that require candidates to raise zillions just to be competitive. Try running for Governor of California or New York sometime.

More apples and oranges. Governors are State races for State positions, not Federal races for Federal positions. California threw out a Governor who lied to the people during the campaign. New Jersey elected a Governor who first used his wealth to buy a Federal Senate seat that otherwise would not have been possible. Let's not even discuss the acquisition of the New York Senate seats.

In Russia, they do have a system where goverment elites appoint governors (they briefly elected governors when Russia became a Republic but now they're back to the "original idea" of appointed Governors envisioned by the founders of the USSR). Maybe you should talk to Vladmir Putin, I'm sure he'll tell you it's wonderful.

Again, where did you get the idea that I said any of that? You're describing a top-down controlling politburo, and I'm describing a bottom-up government of the people.

The sensible solution to gerrymandering is having an truly impartial computer draw the lines with the only criteria being the districts are equal in population and compact as possible.

I have no arguments with you here.

Obviously whether the 17th amendment is in place or not doesn't affect the ability to gerrymander Congressional districts (or state legislative districts) for that matter, but it's true that as long as you have statewide elections for U.S. Senators, politicians can't gerrymander the results.

Are you suggesting that local gerrymandering of State legislature districts will control the State's appointment of Federal Senators? Unless you're suggesting that state assembly and senate districts are aligned with Federal Congressional House districts, your statement makes no sense to me. State appointment of Senators is statewide regardless of whether the local populations' representatives appointed them or the people-at-large voted for them. I haven't heard of any uproars from local state legislature districting. Maybe you have.

Unless politicians find a way to redraw the shape of an entire state every 10 years, U.S. Senate elections will continue to be much more competitive than House elections.

Which is a good reason to eliminate them altogether. Let the State legislatures send their own chosen Senators to the Federation and avoid the costly competition.

There are some states that are so heavily Republican or Democrats, they are effectively "gerrymandered" for one party (try getting elected a Democrat in Idaho, or a Republican in Conn.)

I have no problem with that if that is the will of the People of those States. It's not a question of the party of the Senator, it's a question of the Senator himself. I know with certainty that California would send two Democrats to the Federal Senate, but I can't guarantee that they'd be Feinstein and Boxer. In New York, I doubt that they'd have sent Hillary Clinton over a local favorite, but I'm sure they'd have sent a Democrat.

In 2006, Connecticut didn't send a Republican, but they didn't send a Democrat either.

You say that the argument doesn't follow with gerrymandering because they can still gerrymander whether the 17th amendment is in place or not, I say the arguement that abolishing Senate races will take the big money out of politics doesn't follow because they will continue to have hugely expensive gubernatoral and presidential races. You'd have to abolish ALL statewide elections to prevent that.

Now we're getting closer to what I'm saying. Setting gerrymandering of House races aside, we now get to the frequency of races. You say that the "big money" will move to "hugely expensive gubernatoral and presidential races." I agree to a point. Both races occur every four years, which is a lot fewer than the Federal Senate races. Furthermore, the "big money" is a function of the party organization to raise that money. I say that the fundraising spigot of big money is only there because of the 33 Federal Senate races that occur every two years. If you eliminate those races, then the national party fundraising organization has to be supported by one Federal Executive race every four years, and on average 17 gubernatorial races every two years. Plus, these gubernatorial races limit the influence bought by that big money to the states in question. There are maybe 10 states that have more than 20 electoral votes, so that big money is buying very contained influence.

Furthermore, to say the 17th amendment should be abolished because it's not what "the founders" envisioned is a complete non-starter for me and a really lame excuse when you realize what kind of stuff made it in the "original" Constitution. If that's your reasoning for abolishing the 17th amendment, then we better abolish the rest of 'em too, so we can do things like legalize slavery, deny Indians citizenship, and give John Kerry the Vice-Presidency...

Finally, I'm saying it because the Founders wove a tapestry between the interests of the People. the States, and the Federation. I didn't say anything else. Do you want to go back to Prohibition because future enlightened people amended the Constitution?

-PJ

[roamer_1]

I'm for allowing recalls and TEMPORARY appointments to fill a vacancy (which Governors already do, and if the voters don't like it they can throw out the appointed Senator)

I think I like that too, though I am cautious as there may be unforeseen consequences.

For instance, in a narrowly divided Senate, pressure could be applied to a state or two to cause the recall of their Senators, rendering their votes "absent" in the interim (while the Gov. appoints). This could effectively cause something to pass or fail.

Or perhaps the recall of a Senator of an opposing party during the election season for the singular purpose of attempting to sully him and tip the election.

Shenanigans such as these are not beyond our political system, so be careful what you wish for.

but I'm absolutely against giving politicians carte blanch power to appoint whoever they want to the Senate

I am too, I think. The original purpose of our Founders could not have foreseen the sheer size of our nation. What is workable in a relatively small geographically similar 13 colonies may not be workable in a country as large and diverse as ours.

Another thing they could not have foreseen is the sheer, overpowering size of our mega-cities and the vast power they have over the states they reside in... Nay even the Federation itself.

This is largely more troublesome to me, as these tiny geographical areas vote as a block- Their interests are the same. Their power is such that they are ever so close to overwhelming the Electoral College- The last bastion holding them in check.

In the meanwhile, the rest of the citizens of those states remain substantively unrepresented, The cities effectively overwhelming the rest of the state combined.

Whatever is done MUST NOT lend anymore power to these cities, must curb their influence at the Federal level, and must bring them firmly under the sovereign rule of their state rather than the way it is now (quite the other way around).

I am afraid (as you are, BillyBoy) that appointed senators would simply wind up being minions of those cities- Far more so than they are now, and with less chance of breaking their will.

At least under the current system, those of us here have a SLIM chance of defeating the Chicago machine

You need say no more- Chicago is the city of my birth. I am well aware of the infamous politics residing therein.

the Senator's own state decides what their salary will be, rather than letting them vote themselves a raise.

After some thought, I find I must oppose this idea. As cream rising to the top, the "big dogs" of politics would inevitably gravitate to the rich and populous states, leaving the rural states underfunded and under-represented.

I reside in a rural state- And need I remind you that ALL the rural states are overwhelmingly conservative and form the heart and soul of the American Conservative movement.

We need to empower the individual more, not the government

I must reject this outright. To empower the people, one empowers the vote of those who yearn for entitlements that are already well beyond reason. I have no problem pensioning the widow, the ill, the maimed, or even the basic subsistence of the poor. It is the hallmark of a Christian people to do so. But entitlements have grown well beyond all sense of proportion whatsoever.

The correct path must be to return the sovereign power to the states, as was originally designed. The state must be self-contained in that power and made immune from the Federal bribery that causes them to waive their rights, and to limit severely the ability of major cities to influence the purpose of the state- That being the good welfare and representation of all of their citizens. How to do that though, is the trick.

Consider an amendment to have an ELECTED U.S. Supreme Court.

I would have to think on that a while, but the off-the-cuff reaction is to disagree. Our fathers' purpose in causing the SCOTUS to be appointed was to put it beyond the influence of the governed- To immunize it from the will of the people so that it would only serve the law.

To offset that appointment- And here's the part one must see: The lifetime assignment was to allow for a cogent moral sense for a season. Once ensconced, the will of the court would last a very long time, and survive against the passing fads that come and go across the breadth of a generation.

Now, we have suffered mightily for that in the recent past, but we will equally be satisfied with it for the foreseeable future if we can but place two more conservative judges (or even one) upon that bench.

I will end this missive with this thought:

The system that we have been given by our Founders requires only that men of a fair mind and principled reason are given the reins of power for it to function flawlessly. All the things we are discussing would not be problems if we were resolved to elect such men, as is within our right and power.

It is therefore without a doubt our single and paramount duty to seek out such men in the elective process and to place them at the helm with great and solemn purpose. For all that is at stake, it is this reason that must prompt us to never settle for the lesser of two evils, to never be satisfied with what is better, but only to vote for the very best.

Would that we do that one thing always, and all the rest will take care of itself

[DustyMoment]

Thank you.