Georgia Legislators Propose Ending Direct Election of Senators—Why Not Just Get Rid of the Senate?

Mother Jones (yeah, I know, I know) ^ | February 15, 2013 | Tim Murphy

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

It is a matter of public record that the United States Senate is a terrible place where serious policy issues are ignored; routine votes are occasionally delayed over concerns about non-existent terrorist groups; and proverbial cans are proverbially kicked down the proverbial road of sadness, gridlock, and despair.

What's less clear is why the Senate is such a congress of louts. Is it the endless pressure to raise money? The never-ending campaign? The fact that Americans hold lots of substantive disagreements on important things and are themselves—it's been said—somewhat dysfunctional?

Actually, according to Georgia state Rep. Buzz Brockaway, the biggest problem with the Senate is that it's democratically elected. Brockaway, a Republican, has introduced a bill in the state legislature to repeal the 17th Amendment, which provides for the direct election of senators, and instead restore the responsibility of choosing members to state legislatures (as was the process until 1913).

The bill, HR 273, laments that "the Seventeenth Amendment has resulted in a large federal government with power and control that cannot be checked by the states," and suggests that "the original purpose of the United States Senate was to protect the sovereignty of the states from the federal government and to give each individual state government representation in the federal legislative branch of government."

If the bill passed, Georgia would be the first state to endorse repealing the 17th Amendment, but the idea has gained traction among conservatives over the last few decades. Texas Gov. Rick Perry supports it; so do GOP Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Jeff Flake of Arizona. (Republican Indiana Sen. candidate Richard Mourdock endorsed the idea during his campaign last year, before, in an ironic twist, losing the popular vote.) As Salon's Alex Seitz-Wald noted in 2012, conservatives blame the 17th Amendment for trampling over the rights of states by changing the constituency to which senators are accountable.

Of course, introducing a bill is the easy part. Getting voters to agree to give up their right to vote will probably be a tough sell.

[WhiskeyX]

It wasn’t really meant to be a compromise proposal as it was a chance to get people to think about what could happen if they acutally got what they thought they wanted. they thought they wanted a popularly elected Senator, and wht they got was the lesser Senator who could not be disciplined or removedd for misconduct and misrepresentation. Likewise with all of the proposals. They keep trying to find a way to rig the system so their candidate will be the one elected, but they fail to recognize what the consequences can be after they get what they thought they wanted.

In other words, the proposal wasn;t meant to be a serious one.

[A'elian' nation]

I thought the idea was that blue states appoint their blue senators and red states likewise. I’m fine with that, and all the consequences, which by your observance, a state legislature can recall a senator at their will.

Last time I looked there were more red states with more republican governors than blue states. The country mice can’t outvote the city mice so unless there is a legislative balance shift ( repeal of 17th - wholely unlikely ) or we change to a congressional district electoral system - the democrats are going to be in control of two-thirds of our gov’t for a long long time.