Posted on 02/08/2013 3:21:06 PM PST by FatMax
The Founding Fathers knew that in order to ratify a Constitution and preserve the fledgling United States, it was essential that the states have representation in the new Federal government. The legislative branch would be split; the people represented by the directly elected members of the House of Representatives, and each state represented by two officials appointed by the state legislatures. In the new system, the House would represent the people and the Senate would represent the states. Without a federalist system of divided, enumerated, and checked powers between the federal and state governments, no union would be possible - the states, wary of potentially losing their sovereignty to an all-powerful government, would back out, and the world's most free and prosperous nation would never have become a reality.
According to the Founders' vision, so long as the U.S. senator served the state's interest, the senator would remain in power. This way, the upper house could focus on their business, not encumbered by the elections of their lower house counterparts.
But in the early 20th Century, Progressives argued that the federalist arrangement in place fostered corruption and excessive special interests in the Senate. Ignoring the original intent of the Constitution and under the cover of "democracy" (we are in fact a constitutional republic, not a democracy), the federal government quickly ratified the 17th Amendment, establishing the direct election of U.S. senators. States no longer had any representation in Washington, and the amendment paved the way for even more corruption and special interest influence.
Today, we have a Senate that regularly passes legislation contrary to the interests of the states, thanks to the moral hazard introduced by the 17th Amendment. Perhaps most residents in your state opposes national healthcare, but both of your senators voted in favor. Why not? They can't be recalled at moment's notice by the state legislative branch, like they could 100 years ago. All they have to do is get enough votes from their citizens - or perhaps enough voter fraud - and they are safe for six years. Missouri may not want Obamacare and Wyoming may not want tough new gun control laws, but thanks to the 17th Amendment, the state's hands are tied.
What if the 17th Amendment was repealed?
Currently, there are 52 Democrats, 46 Republicans, and two Independents, both of whom caucus with the Democrats. But in state legislative branches there are 51% Republicans and only 46% Democrats - nearly an exact opposite of the party makeup of the U.S. Senate. And that doesn't include the non-partisan unicameral Nebraska state legislature; it isn't a stretch to suggest that a state that virtually always sends Republicans to Washington would somehow depart from the trend.
Below is a map displaying the party makeup of the 50 states and how they are represented in the U.S. Senate. The varying shades of red and blue signify the % of majority control, either Republican (red), or Democrat (blue). Click here or on the image to see the full-size version.
Now, another map - this time red represents a Republican delegation, blue Democrat (or Democrat/Independent as both Independent senators caucus with the Democrats), and purple for a split D/R delegation. Click here or on the image to see the full-size version.
It is likely in a state like Hawaii - with over 90% Democrat majority control of the state houses - would have two Democrat U.S. senators. But few states have such a strong majority control. If the 17th Amendment were to be magically repealed today, returning selection to the states, it is highly probable that states would appoint senators according to party makeup of the state legislatures. A state with more Democrats would be more likely to appoint more Democrats and vise-versa. A state that was more balanced would be forced to compromise and would be more likely to have a split delegation. It is unlikely that South Dakota, a state whose voters elected nearly 80% Republicans, would only appoint one Republican senator. And it is also unlikely that a state like Michigan, where nearly two out of every three state legislators are Republican, would somehow appoint both senators from the minority party.
My theory is that if the 17th Amendment were repealed, states with 67% majority control of the state legislature or more would likely appoint two senators from the majority party, and states with less than 67% majority control would have insufficient leverage and be forced to moderate, nominating one member from each party. Non-partisan Nebraska, with all Republican officials, will stay Republican in this experiment, and both Independent senators are not a factor since they already caucus with the Democrats anyways.
Below is my proposed results, considering the makeup of the U.S. Senate and all 50 state legislatures in January 2013. Click here or on the image to see the full-size version.
According to the hypothesis, Republicans would gain an astonishing 12 seats from Democrats, a strong majority at 58 versus the Democrats' 40. There are many factors that are not accounted for in this study, such as voter fraud, the varying platform and history of each politician, media coverage, etc. But regardless of the varying and impossible-to-predict factors in a system with millions of voters, the overall premise remains: that the stronger majority control a state legislature has, the more likely it is that the state will appoint a member of the majority party. Even if only half of the seats predicted actually change hands, the Republicans would still gain control of the Senate - 52 seats to the Democrats' 46.
Corruption must be checked and the Senate should do the bidding of the state - not the special interests. But a constitutional republic is a rule of laws, not a rule of men, as is a democracy. The Founding Fathers - who had a far greater intelligence than today's politician - dedicated one half of the legislative branch to the states for good reason. By repealing the 17th Amendment, we would restore the federalist system that kept Americans free and prosperous.
Chris Carter
Director, The Victory Institute
You're not eliminating their elections, you're merely transferring them. The flow of money will not stop. As for Blagojevich, he was selling a Senate seat for a vacancy. For Illinois, that's just business as usual. He was just stupid enough to get caught.
"By this I presume that you are saying that Senators would be raising funds to see that their puppets are voted into state assemblies and senates. I don't have a problem with this. That's local politics. If the Senator can raise money while in Washington, DC, to aid somebody in a rural county in Nebraska, go for it."
And you've just made my case here. You no longer have these rural local pols representing local interests, they're pawns of Washington. This is the counter-balance "states rights" your side speaks of ?
"Are we really going to start seeing $10 million campaigns for one or two assembly districts with a few hundred thousand voters, at most? Bear in mind that many state districts do not align with federal congressional districts, so there may not be natural synergies to leverage."
In key races where this much power and influence are at stake ? You bet it will happen.
"I'm not seeing it. Sorry. It would take too much attention from a Senator to mastermind that kind of local control over elections while still performing his duties as a Senator in Washington, in a way that is coordinated with the others Senators in his party. That kind of national Senatoral Election Campaign Committee would become too large to manage."
But yet it will happen. They'll just merely have divisional footsoldiers (ward bosses en masse) to monitor matters on behalf of the parties and Senators, dispatching money and resources (and muscle) where they're needed to keep the people in line. Seeing that you yourself bring this up makes this an even greater nightmare scenario that one can imagine. You've just upped the ante with DC influence that far down. What will be next ? Town councils ? If you think states are being trampled upon now, just wait until the repeal of the 17th.
I don’t think I’ve ever called anyone at FR a troll, but if Herr Field Marshall won’t detail in stand alone fashion just what he bases his feelings on . . .
He is not up to your challenge. In his case, if the bridge fits then live under it.
I've read many of the 17th amendment articles on FR (but not them all), and have read some of the more interesting links (but not them all).
What stood out was that someone named Todd Zywicki is considered the leading historian on this issue.
Here are some of the links I read or glanced through that contain interesting research and points of view on the matter.
This article, Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment, by Bruce Bartlett, contains some good links to other research.
This article by Zywicki, Senators and Special Interests: A Public Choice Analysis of the Seventeenth Amendment, has some fascinating insights.
This later article, Ramifications of Repealing the 17th Amendment is also an interesting pro/con debate on the issue.
-PJ
I've laid out the reasons why they will indeed worsen, and inadvertently, so have folks on your side of the argument.
"This isn't 1913 all over again; we have 100 years of history to learn from. I don't trust anyone voting for me that isn't accountable for their decisions."
You're right, this isn't 1913, nor is it 1813, as some folks here seem to imagine it will be once the repeal occurs. This isn't the same country anymore.
"Go to Wal-Mart - under direct democracy, those wonderful individuals (quite likely a great portion of whom are paying for their goods with YOUR money) are the ones selecting your senators. Are they going to care that the decisions your senators make in Washington has a negative effect on your liberties and prosperity? No - because it isn't going to directly affect them. Go ahead and raise taxes. Go ahead and send troops to Syria, Libya, and Uganda. They don't pay taxes, don't serve in the military, don't own a business, and don't ever have to wonder bow they are going to pay for their healthcare or where there next paycheck is coming from."
The irony is that my state sends two RINOs to the U.S. Senate, and they'd be the same two that the legislature would be likely to elect. Non-Conservatives. No Ted Cruz or Rand Paul types need apply.
"On the other hand, state legislators (typically) care primarily about getting elected, then about getting re-elected, then gaining and growing their political power. This is constant throughout human history. But unlike U.S. senators, state legislators LIVE with the people they represent. You regularly see them at community functions, restaurants, the store, etc. How often have you ever met your U.S. senator? Probably never, because they don't work for you or the state; they work for the federal government."
I live in a state capital, so I see how things work a bit closer. I can tell you I've never met my state legislators, both are corrupt leftist buffoons I wouldn't trust to run a lemonade stand. Because of the Voting Rights Act, I have absolutely zero say as a White Republican voter in my State Senate district. And she doesn't even bother to campaign or meet the White constituents in her federally-mandated racially gerrymandered urban Black district.
My state rep, for which I was just redistricted into, is an idiot career politician whom has never had to worry about reelections in a heavy Dem district. Thanks to a 17th repeal, I would not only cease to have a say in those aforementioned districts AND my current Congressional district (which last elected a Republican in 1872 when President Grant ran for reelection), you would deprive me of my right to vote for Senator. The only office I would have left to a say in would be Governor. That's it.
You can see why your notions on this subject is repugnant to me from an accountability perspective. You've just disenfranchised me to almost the last. This is supposed to be an improvement ? Sorry, guy, it's not.
"By amending the Constitution, we opened the gates of Senate corruption from a largely individual and relatively local scale to a massive national and international scale. Of course there was plenty of corruption prior to the amendment, but on a much smaller scale and removed any state representation from the federal government."
And by returning to the old ways, you're going to spread that corruption on down from DC, as I addressed in a prior post. It will be like tossing gasoline on a fire.
"It all comes down to accountability; the indigent members of society aren't accountable for their actions, so they are free to vote for politicians that may be corrupt, but they are offering "free" stuff (that their opponents will allegedly take away) if only they are elected. Meanwhile, state legislatures are still corruptible, but are more accountable because their power and re-election chances are at stake. If irresponsible people or corruptible politicians don't have consequences for their actions, then they will go about as far as they can get away with. All we need to do is find the best path forward to fix corruption and restore the rule of law. The Founders undoubtedly had corruption and an ignorant/apathetic/destructive population in mind when they wrote and approved the Constitution."
You want to argue they're accountable. I've already stated how my members are NOT accountable. Ask responsible and well-informed people in heavily gerrymandered Democrat districts how accountable their members are... or those in establishment Republican-dominated districts ? By your plan, you're going to expand, not retract, the influence DC has over us as far down as imaginable. That's the reality of today, which your side isn't willing to face.
There’s nothing wrong with the dream you have for a better country, but how you propose to get there with this scheme is not going to make it better. The central point.
It appears you are correct.
What’s your major malfunction ? Do you have a pathological problem directly responding to people ? I want Conservatives in office, not left-wingers. You want to populate the Senate with liberal RINOs to add to the mischief making of the Marxist Democrats already in power. To call me a “left winger” with this as your goal is the height of projection, sir.
I’ve read your posts. It’s the same rehash of talking points addressed and rebutted. All you’re doing now is employing a time-honored trolling method designed to waste my time. Come back when you can answer the points you so angrily refuse to address.
Are you relating the appointment of Senators by state legislatures to the confirmation of Cabinet members by the Senate?
You keep referring to this as "elections," just pushed out to state legislatures. Is that really how it would work? Or is it more like getting a bill passed, where the chambers vote on it? What role would your money play in this process that you call an election?
If you're a federal Senator, you can't hand money to state assemblymen or senators. You can't advertise on television, radio, and print, just to influence people in the statehouse. What are you going to do, fund local elections 4 years in advance of your own, 2 years in advance of your own, on the hopes that your candidates will win and vote for you in the nominating bill?
And you've just made my case here. You no longer have these rural local pols representing local interests, they're pawns of Washington. This is the counter-balance "states rights" your side speaks of ?
I think this thinking minimizes the effect that local people have on their own elections. If all elections, everywhere, are going to be controlled by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and David Axelrod, that's an organizational feat that would be tremendous if they could pull it off. On the other hand, it might explain why Obama was AWOL on Benghazi, because he was too busy micromanaging all the rural county elections in the country.
But yet it will happen. They'll just merely have divisional footsoldiers (ward bosses en masse) to monitor matters on behalf of the parties and Senators, dispatching money and resources (and muscle) where they're needed to keep the people in line.
I think you think that people just get in the way of pre-ordained elections, and that we'd be better off without them getting in the way of the inevitable.
Would everyone (and I do mean everyone - local newspapers and TV, opponent candidates, other Congressmen) just sit by helpless while this steamroller of yours plows through the election?
You seem a bit fatalist that this is the only outcome that can happen.
-PJ
Please pull together a STAND ALONE article and post it on why the 17th amendment was a good idea. It is the 100 year anniversary, it would be so appropriate. Clearly the amount of material you have already posted would make a small book. Go ahead and do it.
I’d love to discuss the problem. Unfortunately, when you have the angry peanut gallery tossing horse chips for bringing up the fallacies in repealing the 17th, it’s very difficult to do so.
As an aside, the sad part about central va’s boorish and ungentlemanly behavior is that other than this issue, I’d be surprised if we disagreed on much of anything else. If you guys want to alienate other Conservatives and die on the battlefield for an issue that isn’t likely to go further than just internet discussions anytime soon, and firing against folks who agree with you on perhaps 95%, that’s your choice. Frankly, I think it’s sort of stupid.
If I had the time I would go through your posting history on this subject and construct the vanity for you, Unfortunately I am not retired like most freepers seem to be.
You’ve already demonstrated you have no interest in reasoning, but firing potshots and making vile accusations impugning my character and integrity, not just at me, but at Billyboy and anyone else who dares to disagree with you.
Then why don’t you ? Maybe you’ll figure out I’m not your enemy.
Prior to the 17th, the usual method for elections was a joint session of the legislature. In TN, we actually still have this archaic practice to elect downballot offices. Only Governor is elected by the people. Lieutenant Governor is elected by the Senate. Treasurer, Comptroller and Secretary of State are elected in joint session (the same way the Senators used to be). Attorney General is the most byzantine, they are elected by the Supreme Court and the members are "appointed" by the Governor, but trial lawyers pick the applicants, which are never Conservative, so we never can get a Conservative Republican into those offices.
Having been raised in a state with such a process is why I find it, as I cited in previous posts, to be viscerally offensive removing one of only two offices I can actually have a say in their election.
"If you're a federal Senator, you can't hand money to state assemblymen or senators. You can't advertise on television, radio, and print, just to influence people in the statehouse."
So are you proposing to outlaw the ability to even campaign as such for an office ? I don't think that will pass 1st Amendment muster.
"What are you going to do, fund local elections 4 years in advance of your own, 2 years in advance of your own, on the hopes that your candidates will win and vote for you in the nominating bill?"
You wouldn't necessarily have to go that far back. If you're seeking a Senate seat, you would be elected by the body convening who won in that November election. Such members could've been swept in exclusively pledged to vote for that candidate. I can imagine in Texas, where Lt Gov. Dewhurst used many and all sorts of influence to try to get himself elected to the Senate seat over Ted Cruz, he would've been bankrolling and threatening just enough people to push him in...
...and something else worth mentioning. I'll tell you why you'll never get Conservatives elected to the Senate again under such a scenario. In states even with a GOP majority, as soon as a Conservative were to stand for the office, the establishment RINO would then get the entire Democrat caucus to vote for them and pick off enough Republican members to vote them in, pledging "moderation." Such a thing happened in my state as recently as 2009. We obtained a majority in the State House. The Dems targeted a disgruntled RINO weirdo and told all their members to vote for him and got him seated as Speaker. Took us 2 years to get him kicked out.
"I think this thinking minimizes the effect that local people have on their own elections. If all elections, everywhere, are going to be controlled by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and David Axelrod, that's an organizational feat that would be tremendous if they could pull it off. On the other hand, it might explain why Obama was AWOL on Benghazi, because he was too busy micromanaging all the rural county elections in the country."
This nationalizing effect is happening. Used to be a time you had party members who had some wide latitude in how they voted, especially amongst Democrats who didn't go with the radical national party. This is almost gone now. You have people voting almost in lock-step, especially on their side. The pressure would increase beyond belief from DC. And believe me, they give more of a damn about that power than some dead diplomatic corps members. Way too much power and money at stake.
"I think you think that people just get in the way of pre-ordained elections, and that we'd be better off without them getting in the way of the inevitable."
I think that people would largely cease to matter and that indeed many of these elections would be preordained. You immediately make a large number of states Democrat for perpetuity, and they no longer have to worry about pandering to non-far-left interests. They can be fully unleashed to do their worst, while our milquetoast RINOs get dragged along so as not to be called "extremists" for daring to oppose the Stalinist agenda.
"Would everyone (and I do mean everyone - local newspapers and TV, opponent candidates, other Congressmen) just sit by helpless while this steamroller of yours plows through the election?"
Not my steamroller. The left-wing establishment's steamroller.
"You seem a bit fatalist that this is the only outcome that can happen."
No, my scenario may be rosy. It could be worse. Sadly, we made need a literal revolution in this country and a reset button. Maybe then we can repeal the 17th and start this whole shebang all over again. C'est la vie.
You live in a state capital? That’s fascinating!
Since you have addressed all points that myself and others have presented in such an effective manner, now tell me your plan to curb the last remaining bits of corruption and restore liberty and prosperity since ratifying the 17th Amendment was such a great thing for our society.
Right there, I think we would all be better served if you stopped referring to this as an "election," but as the "chosen" that the Constitution referred to. In place of "chosen," I would accept "appointed" or "confirmed," but not "elected." I admit that Article I Section 3 Clause 2 unfortunately goes on to refer to the "first Election," but afterwards goes back to using the word "chosen." So should we.
So are you proposing to outlaw the ability to even campaign as such for an office ? I don't think that will pass 1st Amendment muster.
You make a big leap with this statement.
I already said "go for it," so no, I'm not prohibiting campaigning. You know that, if you read my posts. I questioned how overtly they were going to use the millions (or billions, as you added), to aid these elections. There are FEC constraints, aren't there? Filing and reporting requirements, yes? Senators can't just start flooding other elections with money without oversight, right? If that oversight connects dots between quid and quo, they will have to answer to that, right?
You wouldn't necessarily have to go that far back. If you're seeking a Senate seat, you would be elected by the body convening who won in that November election. Such members could've been swept in exclusively pledged to vote for that candidate.
I would endorse a local candidate running on a platform of voting for a particular person as federal Senator. That's how we connect local politics with federal politics. The Constitution is a tapestry, with the threads of We the People, the Several States, and the federal government all playing off of one another.
But the cycles don't always harmonize. Senators were appointed for six years, but state legislative offices are of shorter terms. The parts don't always move in unison, and never do when viewed nationally.
If a single candidate were "swept in exclusively pledged to vote for that candidate," that's not a secure place to be as a mandate for influencing day-to-day laws in a state. If a slate of candidates were "swept in," then they would have to organize or assimilate once they got there. Organizing helps the Senator, assimilating does not.
-PJ
That you imply that implementation of the 17th was practically the source for original sin is a smidge over the top, don't you think ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.