Tea Partiers want to repeal the 17th amendment

[L.K.Eder]

Tell me how taking the power away from the people and giving it to the back room dealings is a good thing.

It provides a check on the Federal Governments by the states. and a Check on the majority from creating a tyranical federal government.

You think that a rich man like Montana’s William Clark, a copper-mining magnate who bought a Senate seat in 1899 by paying $2,500 to each legislator to vote for him before we had the 17th amendment, being a Senator would make a state more powerful?

Crazy shit. Very crazy shit.

maybe they have a complete trust in state gubmint. and complete mistrust in federal gubmint.

 

[my2¢]

If the amendment is repealed how will state legislatures decide who to send to Washington as their Senators? I'd place my 2¢ on the system most states were using to decide the matter before the repeal - through public elections. Thus if any group wants to bang their head on the wall over this non-issue my suggestion would be: sit back, watch, and enjoy it.

 

[American Horse]

I don't buy the argument that the repeal will enhance states' rights in any way but symbolic, still I wouldn't lose any sleep over the change. I did a quick search on the history of the amendment and came across this:

After the Civil War, problems in senatorial elections by the state legislatures multiplied. In one case in the late 1860s, the election of Senator John Stockton of New Jersey was contested on the grounds that he had been elected by a plurality rather than a majority in the state legislature. Stockton based his defense on the observation that not all states elected their senators in the same way, and presented a report that illustrated the inconsistency in state elections of senators. In response, Congress passed a law in 1866 regulating how and when senators were elected in each state. This was the first change in the process of senatorial elections created by the Founders. The law helped but did not entirely solve the problem, and deadlocks in some legislatures continued to cause long vacancies in some Senate seats.

Intimidation and bribery marked some of the states' selection of senators. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906. In addition, forty-five deadlocks occurred in twenty states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating senators. In 1899, problems in electing a senator in Delaware were so acute that the state legislature did not send a senator to Washington for four years.

U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Institutional Development > Direct Election of Senators

These problems sound aggregious on the face of them, but for some perspective take the last one bolded above: So one of two Delaware US Senators went unappointed for four years after an earlier term. How is that so bad, if it meant that there was a very close split in the direction the "state's" federal repesentation would take? It meant that those who understood that representation were debating and reaching a conclusion that took all of four years; meanwhile the Federal Union did not fall apart, just Delaware had only one Senator in Congress while a discussion by their local representatives was had until a decision representative of that state's purposes could be reached. During that period several local elections took place which enabled the citizens of Delaware to evaluate and make their opinions known through local elections.

Today a senator is ELECTED for 6-years and can practically commit a capital crime, but with the national media's (MSM) bias, and the public's short memory, by the time the next election rolls around the senator has been able to all but wipe his or her record clean, and be re-elected. A similar senator pre-17th amendment would be gone, and the ethical quality raised.

"...nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906..."? At least they were brought to a public's conscousness, which is an improvement over what we have today, where bribery takes a lower profile.

 

[American Horse]

Sure, the deficit and earmarks are problems. I still don't see, however, how corruption would necessarily be less. Senators would still be open to bribery and it's not like state representatives are all angels. An extra buffer between the Senators and special interests concerning their election/appointment doesn't mean there still wouldn't be corruption. Hell, corruption is what spawned the push for the amendment in the first place. You can say "Progressives played on their emotions" all you want, but this didn't happen in a vacuum.

But State reps are much closer to the scrutiny of their electors, and more represent them. Except in some precincts like Chicago, one has to notice that the lower the echelon of politicians on the political scale, that they are less imbedded in the system, and less vulnerable to elective corruption from outside. I for one often cross party lines to vote for state representatives and senators because they more share my states/districts political aims than those of my own party do for me; the higher the echelon (topping out at the US Senatorial level), that willingness to cross over becomes ever more tenuous.

 

[paperview]

All throughout the 19th century there were calls for reform on the way Senators were elected. It started heavier mid century reaching a peak in the latter half.

By 1912, before the Amendment was passed, more than half the states - 29 states had already been defacto electing Senators by direct election.

The reason the 17 Amendment was passed was because, quite clearly, doing it the old way, wasn't working.

 

[paperview]

I don't buy the argument that the repeal will enhance states' rights in any way but symbolic, still I wouldn't lose any sleep over the change. I did a quick search on the history of the amendment and came across this:

After the Civil War, problems in senatorial elections by the state legislatures multiplied. In one case in the late 1860s, the election of Senator John Stockton of New Jersey was contested on the grounds that he had been elected by a plurality rather than a majority in the state legislature. Stockton based his defense on the observation that not all states elected their senators in the same way, and presented a report that illustrated the inconsistency in state elections of senators. In response, Congress passed a law in 1866 regulating how and when senators were elected in each state. This was the first change in the process of senatorial elections created by the Founders. The law helped but did not entirely solve the problem, and deadlocks in some legislatures continued to cause long vacancies in some Senate seats.

Intimidation and bribery marked some of the states' selection of senators. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906. In addition, forty-five deadlocks occurred in twenty states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating senators. In 1899, problems in electing a senator in Delaware were so acute that the state legislature did not send a senator to Washington for four years.

U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Institutional Development > Direct Election of Senators

These problems sound aggregious on the face of them, but for some perspective take the last one bolded above: So one of two Delaware US Senators went unappointed for four years after an earlier term. How is that so bad, if it meant that there was a very close split in the direction the "state's" federal repesentation would take? It meant that those who understood that representation were debating and reaching a conclusion that took all of four years; meanwhile the Federal Union did not fall apart, just Delaware had only one Senator in Congress while a discussion by their local representatives was had until a decision representative of that state's purposes could be reached. During that period several local elections took place which enabled the citizens of Delaware to evaluate and make their opinions known through local elections.

Today a senator is ELECTED for 6-years and can practically commit a capital crime, but with the national media's (MSM) bias, and the public's short memory, by the time the next election rolls around the senator has been able to all but wipe his or her record clean, and be re-elected. A similar senator pre-17th amendment would be gone, and the ethical quality raised.

"...nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906..."? At least they were brought to a public's conscousness, which is an improvement over what we have today, where bribery takes a lower profile.

Do you expect, were it to pass, the partisan infighting within the State legislatures that often left States without a Senator for extended periods of time - like it did before the Amendment was passed, would not show it's ugly head again?

I think it's naive if you do. History would replay itself.

THAT would be even worse for the respective states, as it would leave the ones jostling and jousting, as they did before, completely without a voice.

I also bring to your attention the list of Senators in our history who were expelled or censored:

List of United States senators expelled or censured - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JWBooth]

Yeah. What sane person, who understands checks and balances, doesn't want to return Senate control back to the States and restore their power over the Federal Government?

The original idea of the Senate was that the states as entities would be represented and the House was to represent the people. Nothing wrong with returning to that. It is something I have been an advocate of since before there was a tea party organisation.

Now if we could also get rid of the 16, 19, 21, 23, and 26....

 

[American Horse]

THAT would be even worse for the respective states, as it would leave the ones jostling and jousting, as they did before, completely without a voice.

I also bring to your attention the list of Senators in our history who were expelled or censored:

List of United States senators expelled or censured - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

States have two senators, and the shortage of one of those does not leave a state completely without a voice.

I looked at your link and, of the senators which were expelled; I'm not sure what you are making of that. Pre-17th Amend. it appears that if there were more expulsions it was because the senate was less of an "old boys club;" and since the amendment it is more so.

What would be interesting to tabulate is the length of service in the Senate members before and after, and then relative wealth of the senators compared to the average citizen. I don't think the results would be very positive.

The senate is not paralyzed when a state has a shortfall of a senator, just that there is an argument going on in a state that needs to be resolved, and it will. If it goes on long enough the electorate will take notice and solve the problem democratically. The states are able to solve their problems locally; better IMO than transferring electoral problems to the center of power where they endure for decades. Unless a senator royally screws up, the voting public pretty well gives them a pass at the next election since they come but once every 6 years.

 

[Queen]

"...nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906..."? At least they were brought to a public's conscousness, which is an improvement over what we have today, where bribery takes a lower profile.

Not really. Blago's attempt at bribery was very high profile.

I suppose tea partiers are in support of what Blago did. Because that's how Senators will be appointed if we give up our right to vote for Senator. Give it to the highest bidder. Senators will be lobbyists for special interests and they will have even less reason to do what the people want them to do than they do now. And if the State legislators can't agree on which billionaire to appoint? Let the seat go empty for years.

Great idea teabaggers!

 

[paperview]

Yeah. What sane person, who understands checks and balances, doesn't want to return Senate control back to the States and restore their power over the Federal Government?

The original idea of the Senate was that the states as entities would be represented and the House was to represent the people. Nothing wrong with returning to that. It is something I have been an advocate of since before there was a tea party organisation.

Now if we could also get rid of the 16, 19, 21, 23, and 26....

I fail to see how senators wouldn't be looking out for state interest, just because they are directly elected.

And surprise, surprise...a poster who takes up the name of an assassin, wants to repeal the right of women to vote and bring back prohibition. LOL.

 

[paperview]

...
Unless a senator royally screws up, the voting public pretty well gives them a pass at the next election since they come but once every 6 years.

And how the hell do you think that will be different if you take away the right of the people to vote for senators?

 

[paperview]

Be careful what you wish for connies.

The majority of state legislatures are Democratic.

 

[HUGGY]

...
Unless a senator royally screws up, the voting public pretty well gives them a pass at the next election since they come but once every 6 years.

And how the hell do you think that will be different if you take away the right of the people to vote for senators?

Hey!... you know what would be fun? Take a roll of quarters and glue em to the floor of the next Tea Bagger convention!!!

 

[LuckyDan]

...
Unless a senator royally screws up, the voting public pretty well gives them a pass at the next election since they come but once every 6 years.

And how the hell do you think that will be different if you take away the right of the people to vote for senators?

Term limits?

Those worried about 19th century style corruption are also bothered, I assume, by the influence of special interest lobbyists in DC today.

Repealing the 17th would focus the corruption on interests that serve the state, and present-day access to news and other information regarding the appointees would allow for a more vigilant public, and keep corruption to a minimum. Of course, party machines will still exsist, no matter what. Chicago will always be Chicago.

It would fundamentally transform the Senate into a body that reperesents the states, while the House continues to represent the general populace.

It would bring the 10th amendment back into a play by giving the Senate an incentive to serve state interests, rather than rolling special interests into the DC fold.

As things are, the only difference between the representation we get in the Senate and the representation we get in the House is the length of the terms.

 

[paperview]

I repeat: I fail to see how senators wouldn't be looking out for state interest, just because they are directly elected.

 

[American Horse]

...
Unless a senator royally screws up, the voting public pretty well gives them a pass at the next election since they come but once every 6 years.

And how the hell do you think that will be different if you take away the right of the people to vote for senators?

(Don't get angry - this is just a forum of ideas; we don't change anything here)

Going back to my earlier post where I posited that: " What would be interesting to tabulate is the length of service in the Senate members before and after, and then relative wealth of the senators compared to the average citizen. I don't think the results would be very positive."

Tabulating the length of service across the tier of states from Pensylvania to Illinois this is what I found for length of service pre-17th Amendment versus post-17th Amendment (effective 1913)
PA --- went from average 2.75 years to 5.10 years an increase of 85% (5-vacancies);
OH --- went from average 2.92 years to 4.04 years; an increase of 38% (no vacancies)
IN --- went from average 3.2 years to 5.81 years; an increase of 82% (no vacancies)
IL --- 3.17 years to 4.40 years; an average increase of 39% (no vacancies)

 

[American Horse]

I repeat: I fail to see how senators wouldn't be looking out for state interest, just because they are directly elected.

Because they are more inclined to look out for their own interest and appeal to a national media for contributions from outside their states.

And when a senator votes to support the interests of his own state (the independent oil exploring companies) like Oklahoma's Senator Inhofe, he is trashed by the national media.

Regardless of what you or I outside of Oklahoma think about the issue, senators should vote the interests of their states, not that one vote will decide the outcome, but that one vote and the power of one senator can cause reconsideration so that the states interests can be accommodated.

 

[paperview]

...
Unless a senator royally screws up, the voting public pretty well gives them a pass at the next election since they come but once every 6 years.

And how the hell do you think that will be different if you take away the right of the people to vote for senators?

(Don't get angry - this is just a forum of ideas; we don't change anything here)

Going back to my earlier post where I posited that: " What would be interesting to tabulate is the length of service in the Senate members before and after, and then relative wealth of the senators compared to the average citizen. I don't think the results would be very positive."

Tabulating the length of service across the tier of states from Pensylvania to Illinois this is what I found for length of service pre-17th Amendment versus post-17th Amendment (effective 1913)
PA --- went from average 2.75 years to 5.10 years an increase of 85% (5-vacancies);
OH --- went from average 2.92 years to 4.04 years; an increase of 38% (no vacancies)
IN --- went from average 3.2 years to 5.81 years; an increase of 82% (no vacancies)
IL --- 3.17 years to 4.40 years; an average increase of 39% (no vacancies)

Where the heck are you getting these figures from?
What is the time frame you are referring to? Since our first elections to now?

How can the "average years" for senator from PA, for example, be 2.75 years?

 

[Big Fitz]

Yeah. What sane person, who understands checks and balances, doesn't want to return Senate control back to the States and restore their power over the Federal Government?

Tell me how taking the power away from the people and giving it to the back room dealings is a good thing.

The Senate was designed to be a bulwark to populism and a method to SLOW legislation. Currently all senators are slaves to special interests based on who got them elected. They have long forgotten they are supposed to be representative of their STATE'S interests, not their supporters.

Corruption back then still exists today, just in different guises. Our founding fathers were much smarter than we give them credit for in this regard, and this would be about as corrupt as we currently see in appointing judges to the bench.

 

[paperview]

I repeat: I fail to see how senators wouldn't be looking out for state interest, just because they are directly elected.

Because they are more inclined to look out for their own interest and appeal to a national media for contributions from outside their states.

And when a senator votes to support the interests of his own state (the independent oil exploring companies) like Oklahoma's Senator Inhofe, he is trashed by the national media.

Regardless of what you or I outside of Oklahoma think about the issue, senators should vote the interests of their states, not that one vote will decide the outcome, but that one vote and the power of one senator can cause reconsideration so that the states interests can be accommodated.

You're out of your mind if you think it will change because the legislature elects them.

We tried the old way. It didn't work.

Period.