Is the 17th Amendment really necessary?

[LLStarks]

Wouldn't representation still work out fine since pretty much every state has a sufficiently large state legislature supported by direct elections?

The loss of direct Senate elections would give the House a distinctive quality in that its membership would represent the current zeitgeist of the electorate.

[trayfoot]

1. Yes, it is necessary!

Direct election of Senators was an expansion of democracy in this country. We certainly do not want to roll back a dimension of democracy! And, we should be allowed direct election of the President - the electoral college long ago outlived its usefulness (if it ever had any)!

[sharp_stick]

2. I think so

although States are a better representation of their populations now they do still tend to be a lot more fractious and in a lot of cases seemingly easy to corrupt. There was an article on ABC(I think?) the other day about this.

Also, I'd rather vote for my own Senator I don't trust the legislature to do it for me.

[nemo137]

3. Yes, it's necessary

There were a couple cases where states didn't fill senate vacancies with anything resembling speed. Theoretically, if the 17th isn't there and teabaggers take enough state legislatures, they could tie up the senate for years by refusing to send senators. Also, what was said above about the 17th being anti-democratic.

[LLStarks]

6. Wouldn't it be easier to vote out state legislators than the US senator? nt

[nemo137]

22. You'd have to vote out enough that they couldn't keep stalling.

So, no, it wouldn't be.

[NYC Liberal]

4. Yes. It is very easy to bribe a few state senators or reps

who can swing an election in the state legislature (which has at most a few hundred members total in both chambers).

That's not possible when you have several million or more voters.

This is the whole reason the 17th Amendment was passed. State legislatures, which are of limited size, are much easier to corrupt than an entire state's adult population.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. Appointing Senators was done because the founding fathers were scared...

shitless that ignorant voters would run roughshod over everyone. The Senate was, in effect, a House of Lords. Direct election of the Senate, as others have said, expanded Democracy.

[Uncle Joe]

7. Why would anyone want to dilute the peoples' power?

The primary beneficiaries from eliminating the 17th Amendment would be mega-corporations and the most wealthy, giving them even more advantages than they already have.

Thanks for the thread, LLStarks.

[sinkingfeeling]

8. Have you ever carefully reviewed the appointees within any state? You will find appointed positions

are rewards for campaign contributions and support, often being filled with people totally unqualified for the position or, even worse, a 'fox' is appointed to watch the 'hen house'. I don't want state legislatures appointing US Senators.

[EC]

9. You want your Senators appointed?.. n/t

[NoPasaran]

16. If you consider that Daniel Webster and Henry Clay were appointed to the Senate

While John Cornyn and James Inhofe were elected, it seems that the system of direct election has not been quite the boon to good government that some seem to believe.

[PVnRT]

17. Webster and Clay would be unelectable today

Clay wouldn't even get out of a primary here in Kentucky, regardless of party.

[BurtWorm]

10. Why would you want to be twice removed from the election of the upper chamber?

What good would that do you? Or anyone among the citizenry?

[LLStarks]

11. The method of election doesn't matter without reasonable term limits to flush out corruption. nt

[BurtWorm]

19. A better way to get rif of corruption is ban the parties.

That will never happen, of course. Nor will giving alternative parties equal footing in the process.

It would be better if we had something more like proportional representation or choice voting, where minority interests had a better chance at getting represented:

http://www.fairvote.org/what-is-choice-voting

But I don't know how you could possibly think that a corrupt body like the NY State Assembly and Senate could be trusted to vote for a Senator from New York. What makes you think that would work?

[LLStarks]

24. As a New Yorker and given the current climate of Albany, I wouldn't. However....

If we make elections more colonoscopic (term limits, 100% public financing, etc), it would work.

[BurtWorm]

25. But you want to get rid of the 17th Amendment before we clean up the election system?

The problem is the Republican Party. Once it gets entrenched in a legislative body it's very difficult to wrench its grimy fat fingers from control. Any legislature, which is almost by definition going to be partisan, will be making their choices based on party rather than qualifications. It makes zero sense to me to hand electoral control over to the parties (even more than they're already in control!). Why would we want to make the system less democratic than it already is? Do you seriously trust politicians to make the kinds of choices that are going to make things better?

Granted, the people often make stupid electoral choices. But at least their choices aren't inherently corrupt. It's the parties--especially the Republican Party--that offer a choice between the corrupt and the less corrupt.

[Johonny]

12. I'm for removing the upper chamber

Heck my state is so badly represented in it anyways would it even matter? Would it matter to anyone living in a really large population states. The Senate in it's current state sucks major * and it's make up makes sense only if you believe in the US as a collection of city-states.

[apocalypsehow]

13. I lean toward abolishing the Senate altogether: it's an elitist, anti-democratic institution to

begin with, written into the Constitution largely to protect southern slaveholders interests.

I bet we'd have single-payer universal health care right now were it not for the United States Senate, for instance.

Or at least reform it to make it more representative: why should Wyoming and California each have two Senators, given their population differential? Let each state have a minimum of two, but give more populous states more Senators based upon their percentage of the population.

I don't know - just thinking out loud.

[LLStarks]

20. Equal representation is the defining characteristic of the Senate. nt

[zipplewrath]

14. Roughly, yes

The reasons for the 17th still exist, bribery, corruption, and basic political shenanigans are what brought it on. I have tried to envision a system that might bring about a more "distinct" Senate, more in keeping with the original purpose. I have yet to succeed. 6 year terms, and staggered election cycles accomplish most of what one might seek in this chamber.

The core problem in the Senate is not the elections, but the disproportionate representation that small states have with large ones. When the Constitution was written, the smallest was RI or so, and the largest was Virginia. Now, we have 50 states, with California being the largest by far as compared to the smallest. I always have to recalculate, and with a new census this will be changing a bit. But something like 8% of the population controls 20% of the senate. The top 10 states only control 20% of the votes, and 50% of the population. So you have 8% with equivalent authority as 50%. It only takes a minimum of 15% or so of the population to filibuster a bill.

This gives a potentially crippling power to the minority, and to some extent distorts the political reality of the population.

[TonyMontana]

15. Abolish the Senate entirely

Nothing has been more useless than that body of do nothings.

[suston96]

18. Seventeenth Amendment

I post this often.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The reason there is a Seventeenth Amendment is very simple: the other way didn't work. Several states were often without representation in the Senate because of partisan bickering in the state legislatures.

People in those states, and others, were angry - so angry that they had started a constitutional convention call. That call came within two or three states - maybe even one state from being assembled. And we don't want another constitutional convention, do we. Recall what happened with the last one?

To avoid that hazardous second constitutional convention, Congress passed what became the Seventeenth Amendment after the required ratification by 3/4 of the states.

My question is: why are so many afraid of that part of direct democracy where the people directly choose their legislators? Why would people be dense enough to want political party hacks to appoint their legislators? Isn't that precisely what these spurious movements want to avoid? Political hacks running their government?

How's about We, the People, directly appoint the most important and vital elements of self-governance - the makers of the laws under which we choose to live>

[Ter]

21. No, it's a waste of time

The Senate always stays moderate because it is a statewide office, and is never left or right (sometimes it leans left like now, or leans right like a few years ago, but never is very left or very right).

You see, to run for statewide in the vast majority of states, you must appeal to the center. Not so much if you are running in your congressional district.

I have no respect for the center. Either be far left or far right. Take a stand on something, not both sides. Repeal it now.

[CBGLuthier]

23. Why don't we rename it the House of Lords and give each senator 20 slaves.

The assholes are already elite and corrupt enough.

[Statistical]

26. It certainly would save on election costs.

However I think it will never happen so it doesn't really matter.

Never understood why it is two Senators per state. Why not one? since power is based on the %. 1 out of 50 is equal to 2 out of 100 or 20 out of 1000.