Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Repeal the 17th Amendment mandating the popular election of US Senators and let the state legislatures send senators to Washington again?

The 17th Amendment was intended to reduce corruption, but Tony Blankley makes the argument that it has only become worse and moved it to Washington, with an unintended deleterious effect on the 10th Amendment:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _amendment

In the referenced article, Blankley concludes with the benefits of repealing the 17th Amendment:

"Senators still would be just as likely to be corrupted. But the corruption would be dispersed to the 50 separate state legislatures. The corruption more often would be on behalf of state interests. And its remedy would be achievable by the vigilance of voters for more responsive state legislative seats (typically, about less than 50,000 residences per state legislator), rather than Senate seats (the entire population of the state -- usually millions.)

Only by changing the architecture of power will we change the shape and exercise of power."

I don't know....he makes valid points & this may be helpful in other states, but NC would suffer....we would have nothing but Democrats representing us in Senate as our state government is overwhelmingly dem & will be as long as the tobaccy & pig farmers are located down east....mix in the amount of college sturdents we have & dems will rule the day more than they already do in NC....

Bad idea. As bad as Kyl\McCain are, the Az legislature would be worse

Great idea. But sadly it will NEVER happen.

Interesting idea, but it's not like Senators today are not focused on state issues. Heck, that's probably one of the worst things about Senators today is that the level of pork barrelling for their home states is almost unabated. That's the main reason why Specter held his seat last election is that he can bring $$ to PA. Look at Nelson and the deal he did for Nebraska in the now-defunct Health Care Bill. I'm not sure we make matters any better to have Senators now become more beholden to political parties and state political machines and dealings. It's not like state legislatures are some shining beacon of good governance.

TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!! TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!!!

I see nothing in this that would suggest any improvement in the Senate

GannonFan wrote:Interesting idea, but it's not like Senators today are not focused on state issues. Heck, that's probably one of the worst things about Senators today is that the level of pork barrelling for their home states is almost unabated. That's the main reason why Specter held his seat last election is that he can bring $$ to PA. Look at Nelson and the deal he did for Nebraska in the now-defunct Health Care Bill. I'm not sure we make matters any better to have Senators now become more beholden to political parties and state political machines and dealings. It's not like state legislatures are some shining beacon of good governance.

Without robust Constitutional state's rights so that ideas can be tried and discarded, the federal government becomes a big unwieldy, inefficient monopoly.

Too much money in government - especially the federal government - is the problem.

native wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Interesting idea, but it's not like Senators today are not focused on state issues. Heck, that's probably one of the worst things about Senators today is that the level of pork barrelling for their home states is almost unabated. That's the main reason why Specter held his seat last election is that he can bring $$ to PA. Look at Nelson and the deal he did for Nebraska in the now-defunct Health Care Bill. I'm not sure we make matters any better to have Senators now become more beholden to political parties and state political machines and dealings. It's not like state legislatures are some shining beacon of good governance.

Without robust Constitutional state's rights so that ideas can be tried and discarded, the federal government becomes a big unwieldy, inefficient monopoly.

Too much money in government - especially the federal government - is the problem.

It's not like the state governments have been any more efficient than the federal government. Replacing one inefficient government with 50 separate inefficient governments doesn't sound like a great improvement if you ask me. I agree that government spending is the biggest issue, but that doesn't get solved by changing the election of Senators.

GannonFan wrote:

native wrote:
Without robust Constitutional state's rights so that ideas can be tried and discarded, the federal government becomes a big unwieldy, inefficient monopoly.

Too much money in government - especially the federal government - is the problem.

It's not like the state governments have been any more efficient than the federal government. Replacing one inefficient government with 50 separate inefficient governments doesn't sound like a great improvement if you ask me. I agree that government spending is the biggest issue, but that doesn't get solved by changing the election of Senators.

Disagree slightly, GF, in that all 50 state governments are not and would not be equally inefficient. Some are more efficient and provide an example for others and opportunities for business expansion and jobs. This phenomenon would be accentuated if the federal government were reduced in size. An additional benefit would be that some bloated state governments, such as California, would fail and get the chance to start all over.

I have been a stringent proponent of this for years now...

This just shows you how brilliant the founding fathers were. I can't believe there are actually people out there who think the 17th amendment was a good idea. It doesn't seem strange to everyone that while Turkmenistan has an official representative, that none of the 50 states is allowed to have an official representative in Washington DC? Nobody to put the breaks on the countless unfunded mandates put on the states stretching their budgets to the breaking point?

Wow...I'm shocked.

Baldy wrote:I have been a stringent proponent of this for years now...

This just shows you how brilliant the founding fathers were. I can't believe there are actually people out there who think the 17th amendment was a good idea. It doesn't seem strange to everyone that while Turkmenistan has an official representative, that none of the 50 states is allowed to have an official representative in Washington DC? Nobody to put the breaks on the countless unfunded mandates put on the states stretching their budgets to the breaking point?

Wow...I'm shocked.

I haven't yet decided, but I think I am with you, baldy. The Seventeenth never accomplished what it set out to do. Eliminating the amendment would not create a miracle, and it would create its own ills, but it might be a step in the right direction.

I don't know. Corruption is corruption, whether at the state level or at the federal level. I would rather have the right to vote against Joe/Beau Biden than entrust that decision to a bunch of yokels in Dover.

Ivytalk wrote:I don't know. Corruption is corruption, whether at the state level or at the federal level. I would rather have the right to vote against Joe/Beau Biden than entrust that decision to a bunch of yokels in Dover.

Maybe so, Ivytalk, but I think this idea deserves a serious discussion.

At least now, due to media coverage, there is so much more visibility of what goes on at the national level. You start putting the Senators back in the pockets of the state legislatures and all of a sudden it's harder to see what's going on. It's not like local news sources (i.e. newspapers, local TV) are so diligent and are flush with cash that they provide such a great service of watching what state governments are doing. It's just hard to see how taking voters out of the process makes the offices in question that much more responsive to the demands of the voters.

If Maryland were to do this, we get a more corrupt Senator. The Maryland State legislature blocked slots bill for the 4 years under our Republican governor. As soon as a Democrat got in, guess what was the first thing passed? F'ing bastards.

GannonFan wrote:At least now, due to media coverage, there is so much more visibility of what goes on at the national level. You start putting the Senators back in the pockets of the state legislatures and all of a sudden it's harder to see what's going on. It's not like local news sources (i.e. newspapers, local TV) are so diligent and are flush with cash that they provide such a great service of watching what state governments are doing. It's just hard to see how taking voters out of the process makes the offices in question that much more responsive to the demands of the voters.

One possible good result of a repeal of the 17th Amendment might be that it would return the consequences of failure and inefficiency back to the corrupt states instead of the federal government "spreading the wealth around," rewarding slothful state governments and punishing successful and efficient state governments.

But the Senators would still be politicians, right?

So....really not better.

native wrote:

GannonFan wrote:At least now, due to media coverage, there is so much more visibility of what goes on at the national level. You start putting the Senators back in the pockets of the state legislatures and all of a sudden it's harder to see what's going on. It's not like local news sources (i.e. newspapers, local TV) are so diligent and are flush with cash that they provide such a great service of watching what state governments are doing. It's just hard to see how taking voters out of the process makes the offices in question that much more responsive to the demands of the voters.

One possible good result of a repeal of the 17th Amendment might be that it would return the consequences of failure and inefficiency back to the corrupt states instead of the federal government "spreading the wealth around," rewarding slothful state governments and punishing successful and efficient state governments.

But how would that happen just due to how Senators are elected? Regardless of who votes for them, they're going to do their darndest to get as much pork into their state as possible. I don't see how we get better Senators and better government by reducing the visibility of the process in which we elect Senators.

If anything, this would put too much power in the hands local politians. They already wield influence on the House via redistricting every 10 years

And Native, you think your Senators are bad now? Wait until you see who Sacramento appoints.

dbackjon wrote:And Native, you think your Senators are bad now? Wait until you see who Sacramento appoints.

Maybe a collapse of California is required before things get better.

GannonFan wrote:

native wrote:
One possible good result of a repeal of the 17th Amendment might be that it would return the consequences of failure and inefficiency back to the corrupt states instead of the federal government "spreading the wealth around," rewarding slothful state governments and punishing successful and efficient state governments.

But how would that happen just due to how Senators are elected? Regardless of who votes for them, they're going to do their darndest to get as much pork into their state as possible. I don't see how we get better Senators and better government by reducing the visibility of the process in which we elect Senators.

The idea is that it would be a first step towards returning power that has been stripped from the states. I am not really arguing for or against, just trying to think through the issues.

native wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
But how would that happen just due to how Senators are elected? Regardless of who votes for them, they're going to do their darndest to get as much pork into their state as possible. I don't see how we get better Senators and better government by reducing the visibility of the process in which we elect Senators.

The idea is that it would be a first step towards returning power that has been stripped from the states. I am not really arguing for or against, just trying to think through the issues.

My argument against, though, is that what if this is the only step and now we have Senators who are less inclined to be responsive to the public and are now beholden to some fairly seedy state governments. I'm a PA guy, and there's no way I want to abdicate my responsibility for voting for Senator to the quamire that is Harrisburg politics.

I'm not so concerned about the issue of state rights. What powers are we talking about returning to the states? It's not like states are without a fair amount of power currently. Before we would even talk about how to go about returning power to the states, it would be good to talk about what specifically is being done at the Federal level that we should instead be doing at the state level.