I’m not sure how much more clearly to frame this debate. Is it time to repeal the 17th amendment? Should Senators still be beholden to direct electors and thereby also “special interests?” It seems to me that, in the original intent, there was less chance for corruption and influence, since the Senators weren’t directly elected by the population at large, but rather were selected from the House.
What say you?
Do you want a Senate to be 70-30 Republicans, when they, say, hold a one-seat HoR lead in 35 of the states, while Democrats are bunched in the other 15?
That is, in each of the 35.
Hmm…hadn’t thought about that, cap, but in all fairness, had the amendment never been passed, then for the last 40 or 60 some-odd years, when the Dems had a majority, it would’ve fallen the other way. I think it all comes out in the wash…
Nope. The idea is that differences of opinion and viewpoint between the Senate and House are a good idea…
The only thing worse than having a Senate full of career politicians (I’m trying to think of one who didn’t hold a political position before joining the Senate, and I’m at a loss) would be having a Senate full of career politicans who are only there because they’ve succeeded in sucking up to piddling state legislators.
At least make them suck up to the people. There’s just a bit more dignity in that. 
(only half-joking)
For those who haven’t yet memorized each of the amendments by number, the 17th goes like this:
Yes. The 17th was an effort by the Roosevelt Administration to make the Senate more pliable. It was much like his court-packing scheme.
The Senate and House were meant to be different. Now they are just two Houses. Senators are unable to do what is right by the light they have to see it, instead they must kiss up to the voters. Is it democracy? Yes, I suspect it is. Is it the best way to run the railroad? I suspect not.
So I say repeal the 17th. Make all votes in the Senate secret so nobody can tell who voted which way on what.
Why? Because I fear the power of The People. The Senate should be the chamber that cools the passions of The People. It should be the chamber that practices financial discipline, which says “no” when it must.
Problems, there are many. How would the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have passed if the Senate was not elected? Could LBJ have pushed it through? A good and important question that I cannot answer.
Paul in Saudi, the 17th Amendment was passed in 1913, so I don’t know where you get the Roosevelt administration from. Teddy had been out of office since 1909, and FDR wouldn’t be elected until 1932. (I assume though that you were talking about FDR, since you mentioned packing the courts).
Hell, the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) hadn’t even been passed yet, nor had the 19th (Women’s suffrage). Kinda hard for FDR to push forth an amendment when he wasn’t even there yet.
:rolleyes:
I’ll go you one better. The Senate should be abolished entirely, all its powers and functions devolved on the House of Representatives. See this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=181890
Nonsense. Regardless of the mode of election, why should a legislative chamber that represents states-as-units be any more fiscally conservative, or otherwise levelheaded, than one elected by districts of equal population?
A point that I’m surprised that everyone’s missed:
One of the reasons why we shifted to direct elections was the tendency for candidates for Senate to bribe state legislatures in order to get elected to the Senate.
If we return to Senators appointed by the state legislatures, expect a return to them being bribed for their vote.
It will be less radical, at least, because to get elected, each senator has to appeal to a wider, more diverse group of people. It’s the difference between being the congressman from Ann Arbor and the senator from Michigan, or, alternatively, the congressman from Orange sounty and the senator from California.
For the record, if state legislatures still elected US Senators, this is what the US Senate’s makeup would currently be, by state (real numbers in parenthesis):
AL: 2D (2R)
AK: 2R (2R)
AZ: 2R (2R)
AR: 2D (2D)
CA: 2D (2D)
CO: 1R, 1D (1R, 1D)
CT: 2D (2D)
DE: 2R (2D)
FL: 2R (1R, 1D)
GA: 1R, 1D (2R)
HI: 2D (2D)
ID: 2R (2R)
IL: 2D (2D)
IN: 2R (1R, 1D)
IA: 2R (1R, 1D)
KS: 2R (2R)
LA: 2D (1D, 1R)
ME: 2D (2R)
MD: 2D (2D)
MA: 2D (2D)
MI: 2R (2D)
MN: 1D, 1R (1D, 1R)
MS: 2D (2R)
MO: 2R (2R)
MT: 2R (1R, 1D)
NB: 2R (1R, 1D)
NV: 1R, 1D (1R, 1D)
NH: 2R (2R)
NJ: 1R, 1D (2D)
NM: 2D (1R, 1D)
NY: 2D (2D)
NC: 2D (2R)
ND: 2R (2D)
OH: 2R (2R)
OK: 1D, 1R (2R)
OR: 1R, 1 uncertain (1R, 1D)
PA: 2R (2R)
RI: 2D (1D, 1R)
SC: 2R (2R)
TN: 2D (2R)
TX: 1R, 1D (2R)
UT: 2R (2R)
VA: 2R (2R)
WA: 2D (2D)
WV: 2D (2D)
WI: 2R (2D)
WY: 2R (2R)
Most politics are those of gift-giving. This interest group get this, that one gets that. In exchange they provide money or votes for (re)election. Under the old rules, Senators were hardly ‘elected’ at all. They (as a practical matter) never ran for election and so had no need for bribes (now called ‘campaign contributions’) to fund campaigns.
If a Senator no longer needs to raise huge amounts of money, he (or she) is less beholden to monied interests. If he does not need masses of votes, he is less beholden to mass organizations.
He is more free to do The Right Thing.
On the other hand, I am humbled by the discovery that the 17th was started in 1913. Still it did not take effect until when?
There was a good deal of problems in seating Senators before the 17th was passed.
Many of the states required both their own houses to approve the choice and both
often wouldn’t, leaving the state without one representative in the US Senate for
long periods of time. The state legislatures were sometimes dividied by party and
even when one party controled both the representation of one of the houses would favor some interest or area and the other was in opposition.
You think so? If you ever get the chance, read David Graham Phillip’s “The Treason of the Senate”.
With all the gerrymandering going on in the HoR, hell no.
Now Gerrymandering of the House, now there is an issue.
I recall that once the Missouri legislature could not make districts, so the courts ruled that the state would vote as one big district electing however many Congresscritters. The idea did not catch on, although I like it. Sort of like the Israeli system.