Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: K-oneTexas
The choice was either to allow the popular election of Senators, or to watch the Senate, an "undemocratic" body, lose power. For inevitably, a Senate still chosen by state legislatures would increasingly come to look illegitimate to voters.

I'm not sure that the Senate did look after the interest of states before the Amendment was passed. The growing national economy helped make the Senate more representative of economic interests than of state governments.

What changed most with the Amendment was that Senators, having won state elections, came to think of themselves as presidential timber. Before that, Senators didn't have to be popular or attractive vote-getters and hence were rarely considered as presidential candidates.

73 posted on 06/05/2007 2:33:13 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: x
For inevitably, a Senate still chosen by state legislatures would increasingly come to look illegitimate to voters dumbed down by decades of pro-democracy propaganda and public education.

Fixed it.

98 posted on 10/27/2007 5:38:41 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Repeal the Terrible Two - the 16th and 17th Amendments. Sink LOST! Stop SPP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson