# Clothahump: what's the problem with the 17th Amendment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 16, 2011, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857 "2011-08-16T02:15:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/21 "2011-08-16T14:43:51Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > What does the congressman representing a districts from New York City know about my wants and needs in my neighborhood in a small township in Michigan? He knows exactly what he should know: nothing. Your last line is the source of the fallacy that’s been a disaster for the US political system. The idea of the Constitution is that the representative from New York is interested in what’s best for the country _as a whole._ Sometimes, something that’s bad for one district is good for everyone else (for instance, if your district has a manufacturer making military hardware that the army doesn’t want). The idea was that Congress would look at the big picture, as opposed to the Articles of Confederation, where the individual states all went their own way. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Mouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mighty_mouse/32/7776_2.png) [@Mighty\_Mouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Mouse)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/22 "2011-08-16T15:19:16Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Is there any analysis out there that tells us how the Senate would look like if we did repeal the 17th? I’m not advocating we do so, just wondering if it would really make much of a difference. CA, I can assure you, would still have 2 Democratic Senators and a Republican wouldn’t stand a chance. A hypothetical Republican would fare better in a popular election. Conversely people like Ben Nelson of Nebraska (and Bob Kerrey before him) would need to change parties or would never be appointed. Though I don’t know how many “people like Ben Nelson” are in the Senate these days. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/23 "2011-08-16T15:27:46Z")
> **[HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News](https://www.huffpost.com/?err_code=404&err_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fsocial%2Fshannington%2Fafter-ames-win-michele-ba_n_926303_102865931.html)** > > Read the latest headlines, news stories, and opinion from Politics, Entertainment, Life, Perspectives, and more. Rick Perry is for ending 16 and 17. So it is not so wild an idea for the right. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/24 "2011-08-16T15:28:01Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > My neighborhood best knows how we want to live. > My city has a good idea of what the neighborhoods want. > My county isn’t as in touch with me as my city or neighbors, but we have shared values and a way of life. > My state capital is way the hell removed from my daily life. > My national capital? Why should be like Belgium and not have a government at this level at all! What does the congressman representing a districts from New York City know about my wants and needs in my neighborhood in a small township in Michigan? He knows exactly what he should know: nothing. It’s called living in a society. Should a local area be able to say no blacks in their city? No Jews? No liberals? Can you imagine the patchwork mess this would create (e.g. if you plan a road trip you need to navigate around “no black” areas or risk arrest)? Seems to me it is appropriate for congress to tell West Bumblefuck they cannot do such things. Does it matter that the representative for New York doesn’t know a given town is a bunch of racist dicks (not saying you in particular…just an example)? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/25 "2011-08-16T15:32:45Z")
Come to think of it, why do we need the Senate anyway? One house is enough. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/26 "2011-08-16T15:41:18Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Should a local area be able to say no blacks in their city? No Jews? No liberals? Can you imagine the patchwork mess this would create (e.g. if you plan a road trip you need to navigate around “no black” areas or risk arrest)? The problem with that, though, though, isn’t that it’s the local government doing it, but it’s that it’s being done at all. It’s not any better if the national government says “No blacks, or Jews, or liberals are allowed in Chicago” than if the Chicago government does it. So, with your example, at least, the problem isn’t one of local control or federalism or anything like that, it’s that racism and antisemitism, and political discrimination are bad. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/27 "2011-08-16T16:13:42Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Near as I can tell, the thought process is “The Democrats control the Senate. This is bad. Maybe if senators were chosen some other way, they wouldn’t. Let’s choose them some other way.”. > . That is my feeling as well. [According to wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_state_legislatures) Republican state legislatures out number Democratic ones by 26 to 15. Presumably some right wing pundit noticed this, told Fox news and the rest is history. If the state legislatures were primarily Democratic I doubt we’d here for this call. Its the same reason Republicans are against using sampling statistics for the census. They found it acts against their interest, and so they come up with reasons to oppose it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/28 "2011-08-16T16:45:46Z")
The only reason state legislatures were allowed to appoint Senators is so that they’d be more inclined to adopt the (then draft) Constitution. Now that that’s over with, fuck 'em. The only thing worse than giving more power to the federal government is giving it to state legislatures. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/29 "2011-08-16T16:46:10Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Obviously, I can’t speak for **Clothahump** , but I know an ardent “repeal the 17th” fanatic (also wants to repeal the 16th) and his argument is that the U.S. ceased to be a “Republic” and became a “Democracy” under the 17th. The notion that the Senate represents the _states_ while the House represents the _people_ has been done away with. This (he says) makes the Congress “too reactive” and subject to the varying winds of popularity. Under the old system, the Senate was insulated from popular sentiment, and could thus act (he says!) as the nation’s conscience. This is pretty much it. If you read the Federalist Papers, it becomes blindingly apparent that the design of the Congress was that the House represented the interests of the people and the Senate represented the interests of the states. We’ve lost that seperation of interests and protections. As a result, the states are saddled with unfunded mandates that would never have passed under the original structure. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/30 "2011-08-16T16:48:09Z")
Ok, I did some quick and dirty analysis to see what impact not having the 17th amendment would have had. I looked at the composition of the state legislatures at the time of each Senatorial election, to try to determine what the composition the Senate would have if it were picked by the legislature. If a state legislature were entirely controlled by one party, I assigned that Senate seat to the party. If it was a split legislature, I alternated. That’s to say, the first time I came upon a split legislature, I gave the seat to the Democrat, and then the second time, to the Republican, and so on. Note that this analysis assumes some facts I know or believe aren’t true. First, it doesn’t take into account special elections or appointments due to senatorial death or resignation. So, in the case of the Massachusetts Senate seat that belonged to Ted Kennedy but now belongs to Scott Brown, I looked at the composition of the Mass. Legislature in 2006, when the seat was up for election, and not in 2010 when the actual special election was held. Second, I assumed that party identification was the only factor used in selecting a senator, i.e., that a Democratic legislature would always pick a Democrat and a Republican legislature would always pick a Republican. This may not be the case. Third, I assumed that the ability of state legislatures to pick a senator would not affect people’s election choices when voting for state legislature. That is to say, I’m assuming that even knowing the legislature has the power to pick Senators, the people of the state would still vote the same way they did for legislative candidates. This may not be the case. Nebraska has a unicameral, non-partisan legislature. I split the seats in half. Some of my legislative composition data from 2008 and 2006 was from the middle of the year, and doesn’t take into account any changes in legislative control in the 2006 and 2008 elections. The 2010 figures, however, look at the current status of the legislature, after the 2010 elections. Anyway, with those disclaimers, the current composition of the Senate is **51 Democrats, 2 independents who caucus with the Democrats, and 47 Republicans.** Without the 17th amendment, the composition of the Senate would be **51 Democrats and 49 Republicans.** ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/31 "2011-08-16T16:49:38Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > That is my feeling as well. [According to wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_state_legislatures) Republican state legislatures out number Democratic ones by 26 to 15. Presumably some right wing pundit noticed this, told Fox news and the rest is history. The issue goes back some time ago, and is not just arising because Republican legislatures happen to outnumber Dems today. There are several good effects that repealing the 17th would have - in fact, which were true for much of American history. First, as Alexis de Toqueville noted, the Senate was composed of some of the best and brightest. They weren’t all the populist policitians they are today (basically just Representatives with overblown egos). Rather, we had a wider array of diverse talents and skills. Many congressmen were more familiar with both business and bureaucracy, although legal backgrounds were still very common. Second, it provided a powerful voice for state legislatures to be heard. Today, Many state legislatures are marginalized, much to their annoyance. Even their Senators, after all, must do whatever they need to do in order to obtain reelection. But, because they were beholden to state legislatures, they could andly for the needs of the states. While it may not be as important in the Antebellum era, it’s a potent method of tying states into the Federal system. Third, the Senate was much more capable of doing unpopular things. They had to justify themselves to other, knowledgable peolpe. The Representatives spoke directly for the people; the Senate for the nation. It was far easier for a Senator to speak completely honestly about the challenges and difficulties of balancing the needs of the nation. It also provided much more leeway for making deals, since they didn’t have to weigh as cruelly between things demanded by their constituents. In short, the 17th Amdenment did not change the Senate: it ended the Senate. We now have two Houses of Representatives. The two have roughly the same influences, needs, and personalities. I don’t claim that the “new” Senate is intrinsically superior; I do claim that it was far superior in America, with American needs. I would be more willing to change the Presidency to outright popular vote than to keep the “new” Senate. Now, don’t me started on the crappy system both parties wound up with for choosing nominees for elected office. Oh God, let’s not get into that either… ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/32 "2011-08-16T16:59:59Z")
Damn, missed the window. Some good discussions [here](http://www.nhinet.org/hoebeke.htm) and [here](http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-17th-amendment-federalism-and-reversing-history/). And Zell Miller, just before his retirement, made a very empassioned statement calling for the repeal of the 17th. He says, in no uncertain terms: > [@](#): > > The U.S. Senate has become just one big, bad, ongoing joke, held hostage by special interests and so impotent an eighteen wheeler truck loaded with Viagra would do no good. > > Andrew Young, one of America’s most thoughtful men, recently took a long and serious look at a U.S. Senate race and after visiting Washington concluded that the Senate is composed of: > > ‘“A bunch of pompous old (folks) listening to people read statements they did’’t even write and probably don’t believe.” > [@](#): > > The 17th Amendment was the death of the careful balance between state and federal governments. As designed by that brilliant and very practical group of Founding Fathers, the two governments would be in competition with each other and neither could abuse or threaten the other. > > The election of U.S. senators by the state legislatures was the linchpin that guaranteed the interests of the states would be protected. > > Today, state governments have to stand in line. They are just another one of many, many special interests that try to get senators to listen to them. And they are at an extreme disadvantage because they have no PAC. > > The great historian, Edward Gibbons, said of the decline of the Roman Empire, ““The fine theory of a republic insensibly vanished.” > > That is exactly what happened in 1913 when the state legislatures, except for Utah and Delaware, rushed pell-mell to ratify the popular 17th Amendment and, by doing so, slashed their own throats and destroyed federalism forever. It was a victory for special interest tyranny and a blow to the power of state governments that would cripple them forever. Full text at [U.S. Senator Zell Miller: Floor Statement on Repealing the 17th Amendment](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1134065/posts) ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/33 "2011-08-16T17:06:36Z")
> [@Implicit](#): > > Apparently Clothahump has been interested in this amendment for some time And the more I have read about the 17th and its history and the damage that it has done, the more I have changed my opinion. Back then I said > [@](#): > > I don’t think we need to do away with direct election of Senators. Now I say we do. We need to go back to the original design of the Constitution. I also said: > [@](#): > > I do think that we sure as hell need term limits on them, though . That hasn’t changed. I think we would benefit greatly from term limits on the Congress. No more than 12 years total in either body or combined. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/34 "2011-08-16T17:13:55Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > If you read the Federalist Papers, it becomes blindingly apparent that the design of the Congress was that the House represented the interests of the people and the Senate represented the interests of the states. Yeah, but what is also blindingly obvious is that the Framers included the ability to change the Constitution through amendments if it happened that either they got something wrong or if times changed enough to warrant changes to our structure of government. Simply saying that the Constitution no longer reflects the original intent of the document isn’t a coherent answer to why the 17th Amendment is bad. If the Founders were such geniuses that we are fools to monkey with what they did, why did the Founders even bother to include a process to amend the Constitution? It isn’t like the Constitution is an infallible document passed down from the mountain. It is a political document that was the product of negotiation, compromise, and deal-making. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/35 "2011-08-16T17:17:54Z")
Count me among the fans of repealing the 17th. > [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Second, it provided a powerful voice for state legislatures to be heard. Today, Many state legislatures are marginalized, much to their annoyance. Even their Senators, after all, must do whatever they need to do in order to obtain reelection. But, because they were beholden to state legislatures, they could andly for the needs of the states. While it may not be as important in the Antebellum era, it’s a potent method of tying states into the Federal system. > … > In short, the 17th Amdenment did not change the Senate: it ended the Senate. We now have two Houses of Representatives. The two have roughly the same influences, needs, and personalities. Exactly so. The senate was envisioned as a check on the Federal Government’s power. It no longer is that. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/36 "2011-08-16T17:23:05Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > First, as Alexis de Toqueville noted, the Senate was composed of some of the best and brightest. They weren’t all the populist policitians they are today (basically just Representatives with overblown egos). Rather, we had a wider array of diverse talents and skills. Many congressmen were more familiar with both business and bureaucracy, although legal backgrounds were still very common. The problem with that is, de Toqueville aside, one of the big reasons the 17th Amendment was ratified was because the Senators at the time weren’t the best and the brightest. First of all, partisan gridlock meant that many times, no Senator could be picked. After the 1898 elections, for instance, the Senator from Delaware wasn’t able to take his seat until 1903, because the Delaware legislature, which was split along partisan lines, was gridlocked. In fact, between 1891-1905, there were 45 deadlocks leading to the delay in the appointment of senators. And senatorial appointments tended to be party hacks, or big political donors. From 1866-1906, nine Senators were brought up on bribery charges for having directly bought the office. There was the famous (or infamous) case of William Clark, Democratic Senator from Montana, who went around on the floor of the Montana legislature before the vote handing out envelopes filled with money. Further, state legislatures tended to be controlled by the big lobbies, who were able to use their influence to hand pick Senators they knew would be friendly. State legislatures tend to be corrupt, and even more under the control of special interests and a few prominent political leaders than the Federal Congress. Repealing the 17th amendment is going to lower the quality of Senators, and do little but increase partisan gridlock and the power of special interests. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/37 "2011-08-16T17:24:54Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Count me among the fans of repealing the 17th. > > Exactly so. > > The senate was envisioned as a check on the Federal Government’s power. It no longer is that. And as a hedge against direct democracy, which the Founding Fathers were pretty opposed to as well. I like the idea of repealing the 17th amendment as well. Not all government has to be directly representative, and the Senate is a perfect example. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/38 "2011-08-16T17:47:18Z")
We have term limits if the people don’t want the politician in office, vote someone else in. If they do not, you have to assume that the majority like the job they are doing. Term limits is a way for someone who does not like a popular politician, to get them out of office without a vote. It is very Anti-American. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/39 "2011-08-16T18:00:02Z")
> [@furt](#): > > The senate was envisioned as a check on the Federal Government’s power. It no longer is that. Nonsense. The Senate is still the place that legislation goes to die, if for no other reason than the filibuster. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/40 "2011-08-16T18:03:58Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Second, it provided a powerful voice for state legislatures to be heard. Today, Many state legislatures are marginalized, much to their annoyance. Even their Senators, after all, must do whatever they need to do in order to obtain reelection. But, because they were beholden to state legislatures, they could andly for the needs of the states. While it may not be as important in the Antebellum era, it’s a potent method of tying states into the Federal system. This is gibberish. Do you seriously think direct election of Senators means they are no longer beholden to their home states? Who do you think elects them? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857.md?page=3)