Posted on 02/08/2013 3:21:06 PM PST by FatMax
The Founding Fathers knew that in order to ratify a Constitution and preserve the fledgling United States, it was essential that the states have representation in the new Federal government. The legislative branch would be split; the people represented by the directly elected members of the House of Representatives, and each state represented by two officials appointed by the state legislatures. In the new system, the House would represent the people and the Senate would represent the states. Without a federalist system of divided, enumerated, and checked powers between the federal and state governments, no union would be possible - the states, wary of potentially losing their sovereignty to an all-powerful government, would back out, and the world's most free and prosperous nation would never have become a reality.
According to the Founders' vision, so long as the U.S. senator served the state's interest, the senator would remain in power. This way, the upper house could focus on their business, not encumbered by the elections of their lower house counterparts.
But in the early 20th Century, Progressives argued that the federalist arrangement in place fostered corruption and excessive special interests in the Senate. Ignoring the original intent of the Constitution and under the cover of "democracy" (we are in fact a constitutional republic, not a democracy), the federal government quickly ratified the 17th Amendment, establishing the direct election of U.S. senators. States no longer had any representation in Washington, and the amendment paved the way for even more corruption and special interest influence.
Today, we have a Senate that regularly passes legislation contrary to the interests of the states, thanks to the moral hazard introduced by the 17th Amendment. Perhaps most residents in your state opposes national healthcare, but both of your senators voted in favor. Why not? They can't be recalled at moment's notice by the state legislative branch, like they could 100 years ago. All they have to do is get enough votes from their citizens - or perhaps enough voter fraud - and they are safe for six years. Missouri may not want Obamacare and Wyoming may not want tough new gun control laws, but thanks to the 17th Amendment, the state's hands are tied.
What if the 17th Amendment was repealed?
Currently, there are 52 Democrats, 46 Republicans, and two Independents, both of whom caucus with the Democrats. But in state legislative branches there are 51% Republicans and only 46% Democrats - nearly an exact opposite of the party makeup of the U.S. Senate. And that doesn't include the non-partisan unicameral Nebraska state legislature; it isn't a stretch to suggest that a state that virtually always sends Republicans to Washington would somehow depart from the trend.
Below is a map displaying the party makeup of the 50 states and how they are represented in the U.S. Senate. The varying shades of red and blue signify the % of majority control, either Republican (red), or Democrat (blue). Click here or on the image to see the full-size version.
Now, another map - this time red represents a Republican delegation, blue Democrat (or Democrat/Independent as both Independent senators caucus with the Democrats), and purple for a split D/R delegation. Click here or on the image to see the full-size version.
It is likely in a state like Hawaii - with over 90% Democrat majority control of the state houses - would have two Democrat U.S. senators. But few states have such a strong majority control. If the 17th Amendment were to be magically repealed today, returning selection to the states, it is highly probable that states would appoint senators according to party makeup of the state legislatures. A state with more Democrats would be more likely to appoint more Democrats and vise-versa. A state that was more balanced would be forced to compromise and would be more likely to have a split delegation. It is unlikely that South Dakota, a state whose voters elected nearly 80% Republicans, would only appoint one Republican senator. And it is also unlikely that a state like Michigan, where nearly two out of every three state legislators are Republican, would somehow appoint both senators from the minority party.
My theory is that if the 17th Amendment were repealed, states with 67% majority control of the state legislature or more would likely appoint two senators from the majority party, and states with less than 67% majority control would have insufficient leverage and be forced to moderate, nominating one member from each party. Non-partisan Nebraska, with all Republican officials, will stay Republican in this experiment, and both Independent senators are not a factor since they already caucus with the Democrats anyways.
Below is my proposed results, considering the makeup of the U.S. Senate and all 50 state legislatures in January 2013. Click here or on the image to see the full-size version.
According to the hypothesis, Republicans would gain an astonishing 12 seats from Democrats, a strong majority at 58 versus the Democrats' 40. There are many factors that are not accounted for in this study, such as voter fraud, the varying platform and history of each politician, media coverage, etc. But regardless of the varying and impossible-to-predict factors in a system with millions of voters, the overall premise remains: that the stronger majority control a state legislature has, the more likely it is that the state will appoint a member of the majority party. Even if only half of the seats predicted actually change hands, the Republicans would still gain control of the Senate - 52 seats to the Democrats' 46.
Corruption must be checked and the Senate should do the bidding of the state - not the special interests. But a constitutional republic is a rule of laws, not a rule of men, as is a democracy. The Founding Fathers - who had a far greater intelligence than today's politician - dedicated one half of the legislative branch to the states for good reason. By repealing the 17th Amendment, we would restore the federalist system that kept Americans free and prosperous.
Chris Carter
Director, The Victory Institute
The pdf link at post 24 is not for the feint of heart.
It is a 64 page scholarly document.
But if you truly have an interest in understanding the “why” behind the 17th amendment,
it is all spelled out there.
So false. You're comparing apples to oranges.
First off, the biggest problem with the current drive to elect the President by popular vote is the people pushing for it are trying to go AROUND the Constitution and create some Orwellian "popular vote compact" where the electoral college would still exist but they would ignore it and have their states cast their electoral votes for whoever won the "popular vote" nationally. That is blatantly unconstitutional, I'd have a lot more respect for them if they WOULD go the constitutional route and simply introduce an amendment to repeal the electoral college, but that's not what they're doing. If anything, their tactics are more along the lines of what you "states rights" people want, since they're actively encouraging STATE GOVENRMENTS and STATE LEGISLATURES to thumb their nose at the feds and allow 12 liberal states to do whatever they want even if the remaining 38 states are vehemently against it. The only difference between their tactics and yours is they are motivated to do so for a liberal cause. (namely ensuring Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago will get a "progressive" President from now on)
Secondly, the electoral college is not comparable to the method of electing Senators prior to the 17th. If they devised a similar system (e.g., state legislatures get to elect whoever they want as President with the people having no say in the process whatsoever), I'd oppose that too and call for the repeal of such a system. Rather, the electoral college allows the people to directly participate because in most states, the electoral votes are cast for whoever wins the statewide POPULAR VOTE. In that way, the electoral college differs little from those eeeeeeeeeevil post-17th amendment Senate elections. We the PEOPLE of the state DIRECTLY vote for who WE want as President, and the electors, 99% of the time, cast their votes accordingly. Who the state government officials -- state representatives, assemblymen, state senators, governors, etc. want to be President is irrelevant to the process, just like it is in a Senate race, and as it should be. 99% of the state government can endorse Carter for President, if the people want Reagan, the state government doesn't get their way (sorry, Massachusetts government)
Third, I hate the break the news to all you alarmists screaming about how terrible it is that the PEOPLE and not the politicians elect their officials, but we need MORE democracy in America, not less. Government exists to do what people cannot do for themselves, and I can pick my Senators and President perfectly well without my state government officials making that choice for me. This is Conservativism 101 -- the PEOPLE, not the state, should make most of the decisions over their lives. But if you guys want to scream about "STATES RIGHTS!!", I'll give you a perfectly good example. In my state, the people directly ELECT our judges via popular vote. Nationally, the people have no such power, the President appoints whoever he wants to serve for life, and the Senate rubber stamps that choice regardless of how the citizens of the United States feel about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and so on. From experience, I can tell the system we have in MY state of electing judges is infinitely superior to the one where politicians make that choice. We recently had a liberal activist state supreme court judge who had dismal approval ratings, and rather than face defeat, he retired and a good conservative Republican was elected in his place. Just like eeeeeeeeeevil 17th amendment, the federal government would be better served if we amended the U.S. Constitution and allowed THE PEOPLE to vote out bad federal judges. Yes, that eeeeeeeevil democracy in action is GOOD for our country. If you disagree and prefer politicians picking all your federal officials for you, try Cuba.
It’s an interesting notion, but I think it would be an unwieldy mess. Reapportionment would be a nightmare, and you’d have a huge number of rotten borough districts in urban areas and certain sections of the country. Imagine the city of Los Angeles alone with 76 Congressmembers, virtually all of whom would be either Maxine Waters or radical La Raza types.
Bingo. It would be even more leftist.
‘I think this is a great idea!’
With every passing day, the Founding Fathers look wiser and wiser.
76 out of over 6000 representatives is less than 2% of the total number of reps. Fact is that just one state needed to ratify it in 1790 but it was tabled. The spirit of that apportionment was held to until our government decided to freeze it at 435 by statute.
Forget the difficulties in implementation, this is a perfectly legal method to revolt against the Feds from the local level. Just need a high profile lawmaker to take up the banner.
It won't matter what party the appointees are... the fact that they are appointed by the state legislature and can be recalled by the state legislature means they will answer to the state legislature.
And all the self serving power grabbing trips in the US Senate will stop and the balance between the states and the federal government will be restored.
The body of “the people” elect their state representatives and their state senators and their governors.
Then the body of “the people” felt their state representatives, state senators, and governors were corrupted;
and that, therefore, the U.S. Senate appointment process was corrupted.
But yet, somehow, “the people” thought that their wisdom in direct selection of their own U. S. Senators would be better
than their wisdom in selecting their state representatives, state senators, and governors.
If “the people”’s state representatives and their state senators and their governors were corrupt, it is likely due to a corrupt people.
Having “the people” directly elect their own U.S. Senators solved absolutely nothing; but it created a much bigger problem.
With all due respect, that presumption doesn't necessarily respond to what I wrote.
Do you actually believe returning to election of Senators by the state legislatures would result in the election of even more statist Senators?
Equally corrupt Senators, perhaps. But surely not equally statist.
For starters, Democrats have a solid majority in the Kentucky State House. They would convene and swiftly move to replace Senator Rand Paul with a liberal Democrat. Tea Party Senators Mike Lee of Utah and Ted Cruz of Texas don't play ball with their state party GOP leaders, so they'd be replaced with GOP establishment hacks who are likely pro-amnesty for illegal aliens. RINO Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois would be replaced with Democrat Lisa Madigan, daughter of Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan...
That's fairy-tale land stuff, pal.
Several studies have been conducted and concluded that it would reduce overall cost of government since lobbying would be less effective and thus less likely to influence pork in spending bills.
If for no other reason, this should be entertained to increase the power of WE THE PEOPLE.
Idealism aside, I understand this is a fool’s gambit but I won’t stop advocating for it.
Besides, the whole point of this thread is the discussion of repeal of the 17th amendment, which we all know is also a fool’s gambit.
Besides, the whole point of this thread is the discussion of repeal of the 17th amendment, which we all know is also a fool’s gambit.
Besides, the whole point of this thread is the discussion of repeal of the 17th amendment, which we all know is also a fool’s gambit.
By that measure, that would make me corrupt. I do not support either my liberal Democrat Congressmember, VRA-mandated moonbat liberal Democrat State Senator, or liberal Democrat State Representative.
"Having “the people” directly elect their own U.S. Senators solved absolutely nothing; but it created a much bigger problem."
It forced Senators to be directly accountable to the people, rather than a small group of government people they could threaten and bribe (or both). To say making them accountable where they weren't before has created a "much bigger problem" is a highly debatable point. The kind of Senators you want to elect were done under an 18th and 19th century electorate, which doesn't exist now.
I have to ask, what liberal website did you frequent before coming here? Your argument sounds like something right out of MoveOn.org or DailyKos. They're also prone to spewing obscenities the moment someone suggests taking power out of the hands of government and empowering people instead. "How DARE you suggest PEOPLE and not big government are in charge of this... F--- you, man!!"
All you need to do is also swear about Fox News, corporations, and George Bush while you're at it.
Right when I think I understand what you are trying to say, I lose it again.
You believe your state house, senate, and governor are corrupt and that your rural vote is diluted by your state’s urban voters.
You believe the states south, north, east, and west of you probably have the same situation.
So, you believe, since your state politics are corrupted,
that you should elect your U.S. senator directly.
But what I don’t understand is this:
How do you think that the direct election of your U.S senators changes the equation?
The people who elected your “corrupt” state government are the same people who will elect your U. S. senator.
Your vote is still diluted, the same as before, and you have gained nothing.
And yet, there you are, calling for “more democracy”?
You just don’t make any damned sense.
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.