The People's Senate

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.

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.

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

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

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.