Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[g5000]

In keeping with the idea I proposed in a topic about Mark Levin's proposed constitutional amendmeent that each is worthy of a topic alone, I decided to start with one that I believe will be the least emotionally-laden.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Levin proposes returning the election of US Senators to the way the process worked at the beginning of our republic. Back then, US Senators were elected by their respective state legislatures instead of by the people.

James Madison made the following argument for electing by state legislatures in Federalist Paper No. 62:

It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

In other words, Madison was saying this method reinforced the authority of the states over the federal government.

So why did our country feel it necessary to change that?

First, it was widely believed that state legislators were easily bought. There were several cases of such corruption which fed into this belief. And one only has to pick up a local newspaper to see this is still true today.

Second, just ponder how often the US Senate is deadlocked today by partisans. The same was true of state legislatures.

Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked, in 20 different states; in one extreme example, a Senate seat for Delaware went unfilled from 1899 until 1903. The business of holding elections also caused great disruption in the state legislatures, with a full third of the Oregon House of Representatives choosing not to swear the oath of office in 1897 due to a dispute over an open Senate seat. The result was that the legislature was unable to pass legislation that year.

By the time the 17th amendment was a viable proposal, 33 states had already changed their election laws so that their Senators were chosen by popular vote. 31 state legislatures had passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional amendment allowing popular vote, and ten Republicans who opposed an amendment lost their seats. 27 states were calling for a constitutional convention, with 31 being the threshold.


But there is yet more to this than meets the eye. Much more.

You see, in the past voter district lines were based on geography, not population. Voting districts were given equal geographic size, the result of which was rural votes were seriously overweighted. There might be 20 times as many people in an urban voting district, but they were given one representative in the state legislature, and the rural district was also given one representative in the state legislature even though it had much fewer people in it.

In such a scheme, one can see how the votes of rural voters, who tend to be conservatives, greatly outweigh the votes of urban voters (who tend to be liberal).

Three Supreme Court decisions changed all that. These are known as the "one man, one vote" decisions. District lines are now based on population.


But...US Senate districts (the states) are still based on geography. And there are still more rural states than heavily urbanized states.

You can see where this is going.

This means, on the Senate district level, rural states' votes continue to be more heavily weighted than urbanized states with the result that 27 state legislatures are Republican controlled, while only 17 state legislatures are Democratic controlled. The rest are split.

Consequently, the immediate result of repealing the 17th amendment would result in 54 GOP Senators, 34 Democratic Senators, with the rest being a tossup. The Republicans would gain a majority in the Senate.

I believe that is the real purpose of the drive to repeal the 17th amendment, with the restoring-states-authority-over-the-federal-government argument just the thinnest of smokescreens.


Have at it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I believe it should be repealed for the reason Madison cited.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Repeal of the 17th will never happen. Mindless reactionaries will immediately claim you're trying to take away people's voting rights.

In my opinion, we should just abolish the U.S. Senate because it no longer serves the purpose it was created for. It was intended to represent the interest of the individual state government so that the federal government couldn't become too powerful and overbearing. The 17th Amendment did away with that protection so I see no purpose for the body to continue to exist if we aren't willing to roll back the clock.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I used to live in Georgia, and the state legislature, in a tie election, elected Lester Maddox over Beau Calloway as state governor

.Lester Maddox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'nough said.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Repeal of the 17th will never happen. Mindless reactionaries will immediately claim you're trying to take away people's voting rights.

In my opinion, we should just abolish the U.S. Senate because it no longer serves the purpose it was created for. It was intended to represent the interest of the individual state government so that the federal government couldn't become too powerful and overbearing. The 17th Amendment did away with that protection so I see no purpose for the body to continue to exist if we aren't willing to roll back the clock.

It'll never happen as long as people share your attitude.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I've been for repealing the 17th for years.

A very unpopular position.

 

[g5000]

Repeal of the 17th will never happen. Mindless reactionaries will immediately claim you're trying to take away people's voting rights.

In my opinion, we should just abolish the U.S. Senate because it no longer serves the purpose it was created for. It was intended to represent the interest of the individual state government so that the federal government couldn't become too powerful and overbearing. The 17th Amendment did away with that protection so I see no purpose for the body to continue to exist if we aren't willing to roll back the clock.

In large part, you are correct. But there is more than one purpose to the design of the Senate. Don't forget the foreign policy responsibilities.

The check on federal power has certainly been compromised by the 17th amendment.

However, the election of Senators every six years as opposed to two years for the House still serves a purpose, though again greatly watered down by the 17th amendment. Six years allows a Senator not to have to constantly respond to the momentary passions of the mob like a Representative does.

Six years also allows a Senator to have enough time to gain some experience on critical issues and policies.

 

[g5000]

I've been for repealing the 17th for years.

A very unpopular position.

Please articulate your reasons.

 

[kwc57]

This means, on the Senate district level, rural states' votes continue to be more heavily weighted than urbanized states with the result that 27 state legislatures are Republican controlled, while only 17 state legislatures are Democratic controlled. The rest are split.

Consequently, the immediate result of repealing the 17th amendment would result in 54 GOP Senators, 34 Democratic Senators, with the rest being a tossup. The Republicans would gain a majority in the Senate.

Which would be far more representative of where America actually is politically. How many Republican governors are there? How many State Houses are Republican led? How many Republicans are there in the US House compared to Democrats? The urban areas are the tail wagging the dog.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of course it's just another conservative how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-conservatives scam.

 

[g5000]

This means, on the Senate district level, rural states' votes continue to be more heavily weighted than urbanized states with the result that 27 state legislatures are Republican controlled, while only 17 state legislatures are Democratic controlled. The rest are split.

Consequently, the immediate result of repealing the 17th amendment would result in 54 GOP Senators, 34 Democratic Senators, with the rest being a tossup. The Republicans would gain a majority in the Senate.

Which would be far more representative of where America actually is politically. How many Republican governors are there? How many State Houses are Republican led? How many Republicans are there in the US House compared to Democrats? The urban areas are the tail wagging the dog.

I do not disagree. Speaking of the tail wagging the dog, though, I do not buy the motives of the leadership behind this drive to be honorable. Were the shoe on the other foot, I am sure they would be singing a different tune. For them, this is about power, not principle.

 

[rightwinger]

Another way for Republicans to circumvent the popular vote

They can no longer win the Senate based on popular election. But they have managed to lock up a majority of State Legislatures

Any wonder why they want to repeal the 17th amendment?

 

[NYcarbineer]

This means, on the Senate district level, rural states' votes continue to be more heavily weighted than urbanized states with the result that 27 state legislatures are Republican controlled, while only 17 state legislatures are Democratic controlled. The rest are split.

Consequently, the immediate result of repealing the 17th amendment would result in 54 GOP Senators, 34 Democratic Senators, with the rest being a tossup. The Republicans would gain a majority in the Senate.

Which would be far more representative of where America actually is politically. How many Republican governors are there? How many State Houses are Republican led? How many Republicans are there in the US House compared to Democrats? The urban areas are the tail wagging the dog.

Why should urbanites be disenfranchised just because of where they live?

 

[Avatar4321]

Ive been for restoring the Senate to the states for years as well. Because I agree with Madison's reasoning.

Will the GOP benefit from it? I have no idea. I don't care. I think repealing the 17th amendment is right no matter who contols the Senate. And I have problems with the GOP almost as often as I have problems with the Democrats lately.

Im also for an amendment prohibitting Gerrymandering. I think our legislative districts should not divide communities so a certain politician can keep a seat. Don't care whether it benefits the GOP or Dems.

Isn't it interesting though that people seem to think that following the methods the Constitution originally had benefit conservatives.

 

[kwc57]

This means, on the Senate district level, rural states' votes continue to be more heavily weighted than urbanized states with the result that 27 state legislatures are Republican controlled, while only 17 state legislatures are Democratic controlled. The rest are split.

Consequently, the immediate result of repealing the 17th amendment would result in 54 GOP Senators, 34 Democratic Senators, with the rest being a tossup. The Republicans would gain a majority in the Senate.

Which would be far more representative of where America actually is politically. How many Republican governors are there? How many State Houses are Republican led? How many Republicans are there in the US House compared to Democrats? The urban areas are the tail wagging the dog.

I do not disagree. Speaking of the tail wagging the dog, though, I do not buy the motives of the leadership behind this drive to be honorable. Were the shoe on the other foot, I am sure they would be singing a different tune. For them, this is about power, not principle.

Then you are unfamilar with Mark Levin.

 

[g5000]

Ive been for restoring the Senate to the states for years as well. Because I agree with Madison's reasoning.

Will the GOP benefit from it? I have no idea. I don't care. I think repealing the 17th amendment is right no matter who contols the Senate. And I have problems with the GOP almost as often as I have problems with the Democrats lately.

Im also for an amendment prohibitting Gerrymandering. I think our legislative districts should not divide communities so a certain politician can keep a seat. Don't care whether it benefits the GOP or Dems.

This is also pretty much my way of thinking.

Isn't it interesting though that people seem to think that following the methods the Constitution originally had benefit conservatives.

For the reasons I cited, I believe it would benefit the Republican Party in the near term. The votes of rural voters would be heavily weighted compared to urban voters, which would work to the GOP's advantage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That we give states with small populations the same number of Senators as states with large populations is enough pandering to the rural populations. No need to make it worse. Rural people are nothing special; they deserve no special treatment.

 

[kwc57]

Of course it's just another conservative how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-conservatives scam.

Kind of like the lets give illegal aliens amnesty to buy their votes and in the meantime we won't require a "voter" to prove they are registered and qualified to vote so we can go ahead and get their votes now and if anyone questions it, we'll call them racist. That kind of scam?

 

[kwc57]

This means, on the Senate district level, rural states' votes continue to be more heavily weighted than urbanized states with the result that 27 state legislatures are Republican controlled, while only 17 state legislatures are Democratic controlled. The rest are split.

Consequently, the immediate result of repealing the 17th amendment would result in 54 GOP Senators, 34 Democratic Senators, with the rest being a tossup. The Republicans would gain a majority in the Senate.

Which would be far more representative of where America actually is politically. How many Republican governors are there? How many State Houses are Republican led? How many Republicans are there in the US House compared to Democrats? The urban areas are the tail wagging the dog.

Why should urbanites be disenfranchised just because of where they live?

The same reason that rural folks should because of where they live.

 

[kwc57]

That we give states with small populations the same number of Senators as states with large populations is enough pandering to the rural populations. No need to make it worse. Rural people are nothing special; they deserve no special treatment.

The purpose of a Senator is different than the purpose of a Representative. The senators represent the state's interests where the representative represent the constituent's interests. That's why each state has the same number.