We often hear from our opinion makers that we’re afflicted with a nastily modern problem with “representation” –- either government doesn't represent “the people,” this or that isn't “representative,” more people need to be “represented,” or Dennis Kucinich is “representin’.” When you consider the ease of getting involved in local politics (which can then quickly escalate to state and federal levels), the sheer number of elected positions on ballots across the nation (which curiously enough is something I also hear complaints about), and our pastime of healthily obsessing over holding government accountable -- we're deluged with representation. No system of government yet devised could so readily and properly weigh the many varied interests of people and their institutions as does the one created by our Constitution. That was, at least, until the 17th Amendment.
The 17th Amendment made U.S. Senators popularly elected in each state. While prior to 1913 state legislatures appointed Senators (to be the representatives of the states in the federal government), it was thought that the 17th would end the dominance of party bosses and the state political machines, bring a halt to the influence of special interests in the Senate, make it more responsive to the will of the people, and of course, eliminate, or greatly reduce, the execrable practice of spending large sums of money to get elected. (http://www.nhinet.org/hoebeke.htm)
As the last ninety years have shown us, however, it has failed to do any of these things (the fall of the state political machines and bosses attributable to other factors). What its authors either failed to account for - or outright neglected - is the principle of geographic republicanism. Alright, so I kind of made that up. The point is that when you increase the number of electors for a single position you decrease the representation of any one, and make it more difficult for any one or few to influence the outcome of an election (be it with money, the marketplace of ideas, or both).
Because people could more easily elect a state legislator that represented their interests who would then responsible for voicing their opinion (a moderated version thereof, theoretically) in the selection of a Senator, by making the seats popularly elected individual citizens were the most likely to lose out. And we did.
The Senate functions worse than it was ever intended to; with the stable, deliberative body representing the interests of states in conjunction with the interests of the people as directly represented by the House, only that legislation that would benefit all would pass. With states no longer a force in the legislative process, Congress (with the President) was able to – without batting an eye – embark upon any number of adventures that, while maybe good in nature or noble in character, were never meant to be in the purview of the federal government.
As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #9, "The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government."
People MUST be involved in the political process in a way that is meaningful. So... repeal the 17th Amendment. And before you complain, brush up on what a County Prosecutor (for but one example) does. They're still elected in most places and have a far more direct impact on your life than a Senator ever could.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree![[SPAM]](http://www.whynot.net/images/flagasspam.png)
Flag as spam
Add your comment
Hear, Hear! In Australia we have a directly represented Senate that is supposed to represent the states, but in fact it only represents special interest groups. It is undoubtably the most unaccountable and irresponsible body in our government. Since it has been elected by proprtional representation, looney parties with three percent of the vote have controlled the balance of power in the entire government. They have a strong incentive to be irresponsible, since they never get blamed when things go wrong. That blame falls on the government, which they oppose religiously. Meanwhile we have no means to garner coordination and cooperation between the states; each other; and the federal government.
State legislatures are just as bad, in terms of being controlled by special interests, as the US Senate is today. While I agree that the 17th Amendment hasn't necessarily improved the problems that it was intended to, I don't see how abolishing it would solve the problem, either.
It is obvious that money is the poison which is corrupting honest politics and state legislatures are cheaper to corrupt than federal officials. Perhaps the bulk of the money devoted to paying off the major media involved in elections could be eliminated by demanding that election publicity should be free for all candidates to a reasonable extent. That way the money required for running for office could be brought down to sane levels and freed from corruption.
"It is obvious that money is the poison which is corrupting honest politics and state legislatures are cheaper to corrupt than federal officials." -- I disagree entirely. It is not "obvious" that money is a "poison" which corrupts "honest" politics. What is a "sane" level, anyway? Money will always be a part of the process. The difference is there are those who think its involvement should be transparent and reported; and there are others who think you can regulate it away, which does little but shove it into areas that are shielded from public scrutinty.
There is no such thing as "free" publicity. Somebody would be paying for it, just not the candidates necessarily or directly. If anything, by forcing broadcasters to pay for airtime for candidates you strengthen their role in the process. Again, money will always be an issue -- it just depends on where you want it to play its role.
And why exactly would it be cheaper to corrupt members of a state legislature? By the very nature of their being fifty state legislatures, wouldn't it be far more expensive for special interests to have to lobby members of all fifty, rather than just a few neatly and centrally located in Washington, D.C.?
Repeal the 17th. Plain and simple.
The current corruption in the government is so blatant and obvious in the bias of easing off taxes for the very rich to dump it on the poor, to subsidize the petroleum companies although they are over their heads in profits, to vandalize the national park system to satisfy the commercial interest, you would have to be deaf, dumb in all its senses) and blind to realize that the current government is of the money, by the money and for the money...the people be damned. The airwaves are the property of the national government and the use of it is supposed to be for the benefit of the people instead of for the profit for the media. Political use should be the least of the concessions of the media for the benefit of the people.
Sand -- what exactly does your rambling set of MoveOn.org talking points have to do with repealing the 17th Amendment?
It has to do with whether you have any faith in the voting public to choose their leaders. The money that corrupts politics is paid into the pockets of those who control the media. The media are big business, but the actual ownership of the airwaves belongs to the people and their government. Why should the very profitable franchise to use the airwaves not be responsible to the people who own them rather than to the corporations who have the big money to corrupt legislatures?