[hinckley buzzard]

The 17th amendment was part of the horrid "Progressive Era" that broke out after the turn of the century. The years from 1900 to 1920 were the most devastating to the American people of any twenty year period in our history. We will never recover what those idiot enthusiasts gave away back in the day.

Anyway, the specific reason as I understand it for the 17th amendment was to broaden democracy, and counter what had become a fairly corrupted process at the state level, where people could buy senatorial seats by bribing the legislature back home without the world finding out about it.

Somehow, fools like Teddy Roosevelt thought it would be cleaner if the scoundrels bribed "the people" directly.. Go figure.

Now, in the age of pervasive communication and news coverage, it would make good sense to restore the elements of federalism that were sacrificed back then, and strengthen the people by decentralizing power.

[BillyBoy]

>> The 17th amendment was part of the horrid "Progressive Era" that broke out after the turn of the century. The years from 1900 to 1920 <<

Hickley buzzard, are you also in favor of abolishing recall elections, referendum votes, direct initative, term limits, and selecting party nominees by primary elections instead of closed-door party conventions? How about giving women the right to vote, are you against that?

All of these things became popular and were first enacted into law during the "progressive era". Are we to presume ALL of them are bad by default? Speaking for myself, I wish we had term limits and recall elections here in Illinois.

[Political Junkie Too]

You should read the articles by Todd Zywicki in this thread, Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment. Especially interesting is this one, Senators and Special Interests: A Public Choice Analysis of the Seventeenth Amendment.

It lays out the common reasons why the 17th passed, and then tries to disprove them by pointing out incongruities in the arguments, and then finally explains a market within the Senate for trading political votes based on longevity (the ability to back up the promise of future votes due to the guarantee of being there).

The bottom line is that the original system wasn't corrupt enough, which is why the 17th was passed -- to give Senators (as power brokers) the ability to promise to deliver legislation because of the guarantee of remaining in the Senate long enough to make good on trades for votes.

-PJ

[jospehm20]

I’m all for repealing the 16th also. I think the founders were very wise to write the constitution not allowing a direct tax on income. Look at what a cluster of corruption and tyranny that has become. I think repealing the 16th would fix more problems than just about anything else that could be done. I am good with repealing the 17th also, but it is not as big a problem as the 16th is from my point of view.