Rethinking the 17th

I'm puzzled by a couple of things you wrote.

"... while there were problems with legislative elections of senators, with some internal state battles leaving some states unrepresented, or under-represented..."

I don't recall that ever happening. I could well be wrong, but I can't think of such an instance.


"They were in many ways ambassadors of their states to Washington"

That was essentially EXACTLY what the Founders envisioned. The House represented the actual People, and the Senate represented state interests.

Now, we have all the elected officials put in office essentially by plebiscite, no representation of actual state interests, and look at the result: a federal government that's completely exceeded its mandated limitations on power for decades.

NO ONE is in there fighting for the actual preservation of STATE authority. That's fallen to Governors to try to protect their states' prerogatives, and many of THEM are nanny-staters.

That was one of the reasons Senate terms were six years: it was the best opportunity to ensure that if the people of a state changed the power structure IN their state to represent a change in ideological direction, their Senate representation would also be affected to reflect that. You wouldn't have the "state's representative" being changed with the results of every state-level election. It would take a more fundamental change in direction to put a different party in power for long enough to have a chance to change the Senator.

Now it's all gone.

but Brian said everything I was going to say, so I'll just give a shameless blog plug and be on my merry way.

Well said, Flag!

If nothing else, the GOP would have two conservative voices from ND, rather than the DNC having two collectivist mouthpieces, as a benefit of repealing the 17th.

Now, Senators are little more than super-representatives, especially in states such as Wyoming and ND, which only have one representative. Why bother?

Good essay.

legislatures WAS problematic. Lots of deal-making and quid pro quo shannanigans by the legislators and particularly leadership. However, I concur that the 17th was a serious step backward and repeal would be a positive.

There were some cases where states were not fully represented by their complement of two senators, especially during the run up to the Civil War; in fact there was a situation after the CW I believe, when Indiana did not have an election for two years, and starting in 1899 Delaware did not have a senator for four years! So I hope I was able to clear that up for you.

And like I said, I started out thnking direct election was a good thing, until you realize that the probelms we have with the Bidens, Kennedys, Thurmonds, and Helms of the world started with the direct election of senators.

Crawfish, I'm heading to the Swamp just as soon as I get done here.

mgraves, yep and North Carolina would hopefully have two conservatives as well. But what with the stranglehold the Democrats have on the local political structure here, you never know what might happen. But if the senators selected did not do the bidding of the people of North Carolina, we would be in a much better position to be rid of them.

drpete, you make a good point. That was one of the problems I always had with it, the feeling that party machines would control the senators and that is who they would answer to. But the current system puts the senators in a position where most of them answer to Party bosses and special interests anyway. Change the system and have the same basic problem, only now with very little recourse for the voters.

I did not know that. That's great info to have.

Thanks for doing that research.

Just getting ready for another wave of the Mexicification of Norte Carolina!

As for the information, I had to back up what I wrote...I am not the NYT here! I have standards and I don't plagiarize! But seriously, i am happy to have been of service, because I didn't know that until I started putting together the post yesterday.

Si, choo better ge' ready, mi hermano.

Ees muy importante.

March 4 1913 - March 3, 1921.

16th Amendment March 15, 1913

17th Amendment April 8, 1913.

Woodrow Wilson, Democrat. Social progressive.

Coincidence?

There's no coincidence there, but to fair the movement for the 17th amendment started at the state level. Initially, many members of the Senate were dead set against opening up their jobs to a vote by the people.

I fully agree, and I think that the common undercurrent running through all of the issues you raise is incumbency. Direct elections promote and encourage it, and the legislators (like good old Mac) have gone so far as to enact legislation to that effect. They're elected every 6 years, plenty of time for the plebes to forget the crap you've pulled, but you've got name recognition (especially if half the buildings in the State are named after you) and you're virtually guaranteed your job.

While political chicanery will always be inseperable from politics of any kind, it is rather unlikely that if the State Legislature changes hands that they would re-appoint existing Senators. In fact, even if it was the same party but a different administration, they'd probably want their own guy in there, too.

And the best part, from the point of view of Senators being their State's representatives, is the level of this chicanery. Currently, as actors on a national stage their suitors are Washington (i.e. K-street, national level) lobbyists. Were they appointed by the State legislature, it would be State-level chicanery, i.e. who owes who what in the State Legislature, and would be payback for what you did at the local/State level as opposed to which national lobby you supported.

Bottom line, more than likely a lot of fresh blood. And when you look at the composition of the Senate for as long as I've been alive and more, that's not something you see much of.

but I just came across this article about Khadaffi's plan for a sort of pan-African super-state, and it's rejection by some tribal leaders, and thought you might find it interesting.

http://www.postzambia.com/content/view/14221/

Ya know, i don't think that the shenanigans would be anywhere near as bad if we went back to the states selecting their senators and not the people. There are dominant parties in some states, but we simply don't see a lot of the machines that we used to see, and that would keep the senators more honest. And they would usually be more responsive because they would always sort of be on borrowed time, instead of being able to entrench themselves in Washington. It is a lot easier to be responsive to the needs of the people when your butt can be replaced when the people vote for their state legislators.

Mulling over Flag's last.
What about this, though:
A governor's term is 4 years, mostly.
A senator's term is 6.
So, a, say, Democrat governor could pick a senator, get defeated by a Republican who would get no pick and be replaced by a Democrat.
Another scenario that is on the fuzzy fringes of my "brain" but I seem to remember a governor choosing himself as an interim senator... It might have been Texas but I can't remember for sure.

What you're missing is that in the old system, the governor was technically not the one picking the senators, the state legislators were. But I believe that in many instances the governor probably was making the pick, which gave him great sway over the senator since the governor was his patron in getting the job. But even with that said, the state voters had more say over the senators than they do now because ultimately the people picked the people who picked the senators. No matter who was in office at home, the senators in DC had to be responsive to them; now all they care about is carrying partisan water and remaining in office. They represent their own political interests, their own pursuit of personal political influence, and whatever special interests fork over the most cash...not the people they beg for votes every six years.

You're a lot better versed in this than I.
If the governor (or the state legislature) picked the senator, was it for 6 years? Or could the governor/legislature recall the senator at any time they felt he was not carrying out the state's agenda?

The term was for six years, and I would suppose that the recall options were state specific. But the entire reason for the six year terms was so that the Senate would be a bit more immune from the political passions du jour, and could act in a more deliberate manner. Now with popular election all the senators do is react to, or create political controversies in order to stir passions and get themselves elected...again!