It is brought up occasionally here I being one of those how advocate for it. Now comes a sitting Senator calling for the repeal. The Senate was designed not to be the political body that is the House. The House represents the People while the Senate is supposed to represent the States. Yes the States are entities and one of the three the Constitution balances power and authorities. It serves to curtail the rash and political judgements and desires of the People and protects the States from over intrusion by the Federal government the United States. And the POLITICS. And yes we are the United STATES not the United People. As Senator Sasse notes in his editorial along with other changes including term limits Make the Senate Great Again To restore the world’s greatest deliberative body, we need to think big. "Repeal the 17th Amendment. Ratified in 1913, it replaced the appointment of senators by state legislatures with direct election. Different states bring different solutions to the table, and that ought to be reflected in the Senate’s national debate. The old saying used to be that all politics is local, but today—thanks to the internet, 24/7 cable news and a cottage industry dedicated to political addiction—politics is polarized and national. That would change if state legislatures had direct control over who serves in the Senate." https://www.wsj.com/articles/make-the-senate-great-again-11599589142 So agree or not?
I dont think it would make an ounce of difference. Republican state legislatures will still pick crackpot right-wing extremists to be their Senators.
AS will Democrat state legislatures pick loony-tune left-wing extremists. Yes, not an ounce of difference at all.
It would be a horrible move to repeal it. The GOP would only favor it b/c they control more State Legislatures.
OK, I missed the point. As to the agree or not, BIG FAT NOT! If it was so great why did they change in the first place?
How so? How would this change that? Everyone complains that the Congress doesn't get things done and it is too political with the members having to run for office 24/7/365. This takes the politics out of the Senate and returns it to the deliberative body that is above that to that.
Unsubstantiated claims that the seats were bought, a popular elections have certainly not prevent corruption in Congress, and overblown concerns when some states on occasion had a deadlock in choosing someone for an open seat.
I don't accept the premise of your question. I would prefer my State have proper non-political representation in the Federal Government.
You're certainly entitled to your beliefs on this, but "proper non-political representation....." seems a bit Utopian to me, how could you remove politics from the equation?
They don't run for election year round, they have to go around trying to get the spotlight and their moments of fame and TV face time, they don't have to have political action committees, don't have to raise huge sums of money year round, don't have to try to appeal to the most people and their whims. They go back to being the deliberative body they should which protects the States from over bearing demands by the Federal Government and represent the interest of the STATES as the Senate was designed to do while the House represents the PEOPLE.
The Senate passes laws that affect and can CONTROL your life. you want them controlling your life without you having a say in who they are? sounds like Fascism.
no, I prefer to be served. the People elect our leaders and it should stay that way!!!! anything else is Fascism.
The Seventeenth Amendment had profound effects on the structure of federalism in a way very few people at that time thought about or anticipated. The Senate was originally supposed to represent the interests of the states, and be a way in which the states could make sure their rights would be protected. It's no coincidence that it was the Senate that confirms judges and not the House, written into the original Constitution.
The trouble with that is who runs the elections, and the possibility of disputed elections. By putting it into the hands of the individual states, you decentralize any issues or possible problems.
Ironically, that's why the original founders wanted the Senate not to be directly elected by the people. Now we're seeing the controversial issue of mail-in ballots, with little security.
I'd be fine with abolishing the 17th amendment. But only in exchange for the electoral college being proportional to the percent of the state won, and gerrymandering being banned.
The reasons in favor of tossing out the 17th amendment are the same reasons for using the electoral college for election of the President.
