What is your opinion of the 17th Amendment?

[Calthrina950]

The question is as in the title. Recently, many on the right have been calling for the repeal of the 17th Amendment. Ratified in 1913, this Amendment was one of the major accomplishments of the Progressive Era, changing the method of selection for Senators from election by the state legislatures to election by the voters in each state. Those who call for its repeal believe that it works against the Founding Fathers' intentions, upsets federalism, and disrupts the balance between the states and the people, which is supposed to be embodied by the two Houses of Congress.

Do you agree with these conclusions? Or do you think there are more nefarious intentions at work, fueling the opposition to the Amendment? Vote in the poll and share your views below.

[brucejoel99]

I don't agree with those conclusions, as the (obvious) nefarious intention behind them is to make the Senate subject to the effects of pro-Republican gerrymandered state-legislative districts so that there'd be fewer Democratic Senators from states with Republican legislatures.

The original method of electing Senators had become totally outdated & full of practical problems by the time the 17th Amendment was ratified: legislative election of Senators had come to dominate the business of the legislatures, to their own detriment. Moreover, choices were often suspected to have been made as a result of corruption: some state legislators were literally auctioning off Senate seats (y'know, that thing Blagojevich would still be rotting in a federal prison for were it not for our favorite President), which poisoned the political atmosphere, & so direct elections were demanded by those who didn't want party bosses & elites controlling Congress any longer.

Such demands led many states to go so far as to just hold referendum-like elections which the legislature would then formally ratify. This solution was popular with both the people (who like democracy) & the state legislatures (who had the hassle of having to elect the Senators themselves taken off their plates). The 17th Amendment merely codified a process that was already happening on the ground, & did nothing to change the original intent of the Constitution in creating a federal system. Perhaps it somewhat separates the Senators from their state governments, yes, but in any event, it does so no more than the long length of Senatorial terms served to do.

So to be blunt, to support its repeal is to be un-American. Those who support its repeal seem to only like the very concept of democracy & of letting the people decide who their representatives are in the event that elections go their own way.

[Del Tachi]

Keep it, obviously

[Alcibiades]

So long as the Senate remains the most powerful upper house in the world, the amendment should definitely be kept. There is a case to be made for selection by state legislatures if the Senate had more of a Bundesrat-style function.

[MarkD]

i am actually ambivalent about repealing the 17th. I can see good arguments on both sides, and I am very unsure which policy would be better.

I know that a lot of supporters of the Convention of States Project are in favor of repealing the 17th, but like you implied, Caltherina, it only seems to be popular with right-wingers. And I don't know whether or not the Convention of States would actually try to propose it.

But Brucejoel makes the point that would alarm a lot of Democrats, namely that the Senate would pretty much have a never-ending, large Republican majority because of how many state legislatures are dominated by Republicans (whether or not that dominance is thanks to gerrymandering). Therefore, repealing the 17th would be very unpopular with most Democrats, and likewise it would mean that even if an amendment repealing the 17th were proposed by the Convention of States Project, it would still be extremely unlikely to be ratifed by the minimum 38 state legislatures, because I can't imagine any Democrat-dominated state legislature ratifying something that would likely lead to a permanent Republican majority in the Senate.

[StateBoiler]

It's around to stay. Whether it's good law or not is irrelevant. The people believe they should pick the Senators, not state legislatures. Looking long-term, due to the immense amount of power it has currently, it wouldn't surprise me if some constitutional amendment in say the next 100 years was either called for or came to pass trying to make Supreme Court justices up for popular approval.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I know that a lot of supporters of the Convention of States Project are in favor of repealing the 17th, but like you implied, Caltherina, it only seems to be popular with right-wingers. And I don't know whether or not the Convention of States would actually try to propose it.

Which is really, really ironic, since the main reason Congress finally sent the 17th to the States for ratification was to prevent a Convention of States from happening. At the time 27 of the then needed 31 states had formally called for a convention, and it was widely expected that when admitted, Arizona and New Mexico would join the call and two other States had expressed approval for the idea without formally calling for a convention.

[Figueira]

Abolish the Senate, but keeping the 17th Amendment is still better than repealing it.

[compucomp]

If I remember my American history correctly, by the late 19th century the Senate had become the backstop of sorts for moneyed interests and large corporations and had stopped many attempts at reforms and other policies supported by the majority (ex. the Wilson-Gorman tariff). The 17th Amendment was a Progressive reform because it was felt that having the Senate selected by state legislatures made it too easy for the trusts to control. If the 17th Amendment were repealed, I think we'd quickly go back to the prior state of affairs. It's easy for me to imagine the banks or big tech banding together and buying state legislatures to stop financial or tech reforms.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, the Founding Fathers' intentions included us not having those evil antirepublican abominations known as political parties. Election of Senators by the State legislatures is one of those things that became adversely tainted by the effects of party politics, so regardless of whether the 17th is kept or amended, we wouldn't be having the Senate elected in the manner they envisioned.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

In my ideal country, the federal government would be weaker, particularly the executive branch, and the states would choose the Senate, with Congress’s power also dramatically weakened. The feds would focus on foreign policy issues only leaving domestic policy to the states. In this system, I would want the states to select their senators.


Under the current system, the 17th amendment should stay in place. I disagree with Ben Sasse and the other proponents of repeal in my belief that repeal would actually make the Senate and the country  more polarized than it currently is by:


* Making state legislative elections essentially federal elections, stopping people from voting based on what’s best for their state by making those votes count in federal politics

* Removing red state Democrats and blue state Republicans, who count for most of the moderates in the Senate

[KaiserDave]

Keep it, of course

[Hope For A New Era]

Keep it. More-direct democracy is almost always better.