Replies

The problem was corruption. The Civil War bequeathed us an early and primitive form of corporate fascism. The country was ruled by Big Business in general and Big Railroads in particular. State governments had become wholly owned subsidiaries of companies or interests. Because the legislatures selected senators, the senators from California were known as the senators from the Southern Pacific, and the senators from Pennsylvania were known as the senators from King Coal. The Progressives revived the direct election idea, and it caught fire.

In 1912, enough states sent applications for an Amendments Convention dedicated to the direct election idea to Congress that it became necessary to call such a convention.

The House had always passed a direct election amendment by the necessary two thirds margin, but the Senate had always balked. Now that a convention was becoming probable, the Senate feared the convention would write an amendment that would require that the entire Senate be elected directly all at once, not phased in by senatorial class. The Senate slam-dunked an amendment that phased in direct election, and the House slam-dunked it also.

A number of states had appended Discharge Clauses to their applications in the event that Congress handled the situation on its own. Once that happened, Congress invoked the Discharge Clauses and stated that the number of applications from the states had fallen below the two thirds threshold. That's how Congress avoided a convention.

State governments had become wholly owned subsidiaries of companies or interests. Because the legislatures selected senators, the senators from California were known as the senators from the Southern Pacific, and the senators from Pennsylvania were known as the senators from King Coal. The Progressives revived the direct election idea, and it caught fire.

In hindsight, what is wrong with that if the economies of those states depended on those companies?

Are California Senators today not the Senators from Google and Oracle? Michigan and General Motors? Massachusetts and Harvard?

I think the difference is that voters in the 1800s paid more attention than do the voters of today, evidenced by Hostage's stories of voters concerned with whom their state legislators would appoint. Again, what's wrong with that? I'd much rather have an informed electorate than a disengaged one.

That may be why Congress wanted to take control and push through the 17th. They realized that it was easier to appease an increasingly distracted voting public once every six years in the new Industrial Age, than appease a constantly watching legislature every week.

So I'm not as worried about local state cronies appointing federal cronies. As I've written before, at least the cronies will be contained to their state's unique interests. Today, the Senate is disconnected from the interests of their states-in-name-only, and more interested in a globalist agenda that is in conflict with their own states.

State control of the Senate is a missing cheek and balance in the Constitution, regardless of the trade-off of good and bad.

-PJ