It was a chief demand of the Populists, an effort to cut corrupt state legislatures out of the national discussion by having voters elect each state’s senators.
Remember, the U.S. Constitution, as originally drafted, left the selection of each state’s senators to the states’ respective legislatures, an effort designed to cool political passions and lessen the hold that the rabble might have on the federal government.
The states, however, were universally corrupt, beholden to the money interests of the day — to the railroads and big tobacco — and the small farmers in the South and Midwest who made up what became known as the Populist Party found themselves frozen out of the decisionmaking and feeling fleeced.
So the movement began, the Farmers Alliance and People’s Party, calling for monetary reform, regulation of the banks and railroads, and political reform, including the direct election of senators.
While much of the reforms sought by the Populists failed to become law, the party had an impact as the Progressives, a more urban, middle-class movement, altered the way we think about government, instituting an array of regulations and restrictions we now take for granted (bans on child labor, the 40-hour week, health and safety inspections, etc.) and some basic changes in the electoral process — including the 17th amendment, which forced senate candidates onto a popular ballot.
It was a victory for democracy, giving the American people another opportunity to choose for themselves people who are supposed to act on their behalf in matters of war, taxes, etc.
Flashfoward nearly a century and we have today’s most notable populist movement, the rightwing Tea Party, advocating for repeal of the 17th amendment “convinced that returning to the pre-17th Amendment system would reduce the power of the federal government and enhance state rights.”
Senate candidates have to raise so much money to run that they become beholden to special interests, party members say. They argue that state legislators would not be as compromised and would choose senators who truly put their state’s needs first.
The argument is an interesting one, if a bit backward looking and anti-democratic. It acknowledges the Founders’ concerns, which included the desire to have a house of elites to offset the people’s house — similar to the arrangement in Great Britain.
To Madison, Hamilton and most of the other authors of the Constitution, allowing states to appoint the Senate was the linchpin of the entire federalist system and the real reason there are two houses of Congress. It may be true that appointed senators, accountable only to state legislators, would never approve of many useful federal mandates designed to put the national interest above local parochialism — including everything from the minimum wage to the new health care reform law.
That in itself should be an argument against repeal (though, I admit, small-government types will not agree), but there is a better one that has nothing to do with political philosophy or ideology. Should New Jersey voters trust the folks who have made such a mess of the state to pick the people who represent us in Washington? Should the people in Albany, who have become national laughingstocks in their dysfunctionality, get to pick which New Yorkers should head south? Would these ethically compromised men and women do a better job than we do?
Do I need to answer?
- Send me an e-mail.
- Read poetry at The Subterranean.
- Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.
Hank Kalet 
Obviously, an answer IS required! Yes, we do need to give the States a voice. The WHOLE purpose of Senate was to slow the mob-o-cracy (i.e., democracy aka mob rule).It had (imho) the unintended consequence of preventing UNFUNDED MANDATES on the State by the Federal Gooferment. <<Envision Political Hack in DC voting to stick the good old boys back at the State Capitol's Golden Dome. Then he returns to the them for another six year term, and they express their displeasure. Guess he won't be gong back to the DC fun._The Dead Old White Guys has genius and we shouldn't muck with it.
If we are such an incompetent mob, why have any elections at all? Just allow our \”betters\” to select senators, representatives, governors, mayors, etc. Having state legislatures and/or governors select senators was subject to corruption and the buying of state legislatures wholesale. Not only that, but there was often internecine squabbling in state legislatures to such an extent that senators were not selected for years. Maryland, for instance, didn't send a senator to DC for 4 straight years at one point. Needless to say, the residents of Maryland were quite upset at this lack of representation. And last but not least, we don't need to give the bloated bully in Trenton any more powers for him to abuse and misuse.The 17th should not be repealed. I'm guessing that 98% of Americans would be mightily miffed if their right to vote for a senator were taken away.
Heck, why don't we just turn every state into California, where you can put any old thing on the ballot and change the state law each year? Who even needs state legislators? Isn't it only a matter of time before everything is done by internet vote and the masses decide everything, and truly run the state/country into the ground?
PS. Going to the coffee party convention?
*** begin quote ***If we are such an incompetent mob, why have any elections at all? Just allow our \”betters\” to select senators, representatives, governors, mayors, etc.*** end quote ***And, that differs from how it is done today? Think about the supposed two party tweedle dee and tweedle dumber choices we are offered. Isn't that selection by our betters?Argh!Representative government is supposed to slow the mob rule of \”democracy\”.And so what if a few senators were awol, we survived.But, remember we get better crooks when selected by the States. They don't want to be embarrassed by sex scandals. And, they don't want unfunded mandates. So they will choose Senators that are \”distinguished\”. Not notorious.Lest a voter get mad at them for some one else's antics.
I agree with frisky about those tea bagger type California ballot initiatives that have capped property taxes and destroyed their school system. CA went from a top rated school system to near the bottom of the barrel. Christie wants to do the same thing to NJ. NJ's schools are currently top rated and in some areas we are number 1. NJ public schools are in the top tier of schools in this country.Those CA ballot initiatives are funded by wealthy right wing tea bagger types. Cripple the taxing ability of a state or school district and you will end up with lousy schools and lousy or non-existent services. We don't need no stinking police, fire fighters, good schools or EMTs.
*** begin quote ***We don't need no stinking police, fire fighters, good schools or EMTs.*** end quote ***Us little L libertarians want police that we \”buy\” from a market where we can buy the level and type of protection we need. We want fire protection that we get what we need at a price we can understand. (perhaps in conjunction with insurance) Same with EMTs. Schools should be completely deregulated and funded by the parents. Churches, Fraternal Organizations, Neighborhood Associations, or even \”Sponsored by Business\” may run schools. No guns to force either students to attend or others to pay for.What a beautiful world. Peaceful. Efficient, effective, and moral.Sigh!
FYI Glenn Beck is going to tackle the Seventeenth Amendment on his TV show Friday!