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

To: ZULU
Good point and it brings up one of the little known reasons Progressives pushed for the 17th. State legislatures in general, better reflected rural, Republican interests. Before the bogus Scotus One-Man-One-Vote ruling, State Senators could represent counties. In most states there were more rural counties than urban counties, and pubbies in the aggregate had a leg up in representation.

We'll never know for sure the ramifications of the 17th, but if Senators had not been beholding to the whims of the people just as Congressmen are, had not been charged with spreading the wealth these past 100 years, I think it is fair to say our nation would be far different. The mindless urbanites would probably be fewer in number, for there would have been less money for democrats to breed them for the past several generations.

Under the federal system, there was feedback between the States and Senators. With the 17th, the feedback moved to between the mob and Senators. I just don't think the FDR, LBJ, Obama programs of spreading the plunder would have had a chance without the 17th.

33 posted on 02/26/2013 12:18:32 PM PST by Jacquerie ("How few were left who had seen the republic!" - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: Jacquerie
I just don't think the FDR, LBJ, Obama programs of spreading the plunder would have had a chance without the 17th.

Nor would anything which stripped state sovereignty. One could argue that the entire Twentieth Century would have turned out much differently regarding domestic policy and the effect it had on economics.

35 posted on 02/26/2013 12:55:06 PM PST by FatMax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | 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