# 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:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/41 "2011-08-16T18:20:56Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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? IMO, the provision for amendment is among the best and most important parts of the Constitution. It was _meant to evolve_, albeit in explicit writing and by process, not by ad hoc mutation of interpretation. ---
**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, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/42 "2011-08-16T19:35:53Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > 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. If you think this is a good argument for persuading me, forget it. I rarely have a problem with _too few politicians_. > [@](#): > > 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. When either they had a much tighter justice system or much more honest politicians, if only nine were charges. These days, the bribes are simply implicit. Can you honestly say that William Jefferson or all the “friends of Anthony Mozillo” were any different, except they were sneakier or managed to wriggle out of prosecution (for a while, anyway)? > [@](#): > > 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. And this changed for the better how, exactly? Pretending the national government is freer from corruption than the states. It’s an average - not more or less. We in Tennessee have very few corruption problems. In Illinois that’s pretty much become the basis of government. But Illinois still sends corrupt politicians to the Senate, just different corrupt politicians. And I prefer the obviously corrupt to the sneaky corrupt. > [@](#): > > 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. Cannot be true at the same time. If little is getting done, then it’s not going to favor those who want to buy favors and changes. However, I doubt you very much. The late 19th and early 20th centuries were hardly free of improtant legislation or changes. Everyone says they hate gridlock, but they always mean, 'I can’t get my program through." At the end of the day, democracy is gridlock, or it is mob rule. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/43 "2011-08-16T19:47:12Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > I like the senate the way it is. It doesn’t destroy the idea of republicanism over raw democracy because each state gets two senators despite their huge differences in respective populations. Surely the only way for a piece of legislation not to destroy the idea of republicanism is not to install a monarch. On this count the 17th amendment succeeds brilliantly. ---
**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, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/44 "2011-08-16T19:51:04Z")
> [@furt](#): > > The senate was envisioned as a check on the Federal Government’s power. 😕 No, it **weilds** the federal government’s power. ---
**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, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/45 "2011-08-16T20:02:13Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > If you think this is a good argument for persuading me, forget it. I rarely have a problem with _too few politicians_. If you want fewer politicians, then propose to make the Congress smaller, not deprive the people of their lawful representation in government. > [@](#): > > We in Tennessee have very few corruption problems. [Yep,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tennessee_Waltz) [you](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rocky_Top) [must](http://www.newschannel5.com/story/11856013/tenn-voter-corruption-found-statewide?redirected=true) be [squeaky](http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2010/05/09/the-most-corrupt-states.html) [clean](http://www.wbir.com/news/article/173214/2/Corruption-claims-hit-TDOT-again). ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/46 "2011-08-16T20:27:58Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > We in Tennessee have very few corruption problems. In Illinois that’s pretty much become the basis of government. Whoosh. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/47 "2011-08-16T20:58:37Z")
A question for those who oppose the 17th. When the role of Senators was first being discussed, there were proposals that they should serve at the will of the state legislature rather than being elected by the state legislature. In other words, the legislature back home would have the power to recall any senator it felt wasn’t representing the state’s best interests. On the one hand, this would make the power of the state legislatures much stronger. On the other hand, it would destroy any independence in the Senate - Senators would basically just be appointed spokesmen. And it would mean that a change in majorities in the state government would lead to a change in Senators. That said, would you support or oppose recall of Senators? ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/48 "2011-08-16T21:07:10Z")
I haven’t been arguing against the 17th, but a recall mechanism like that makes the prospect much more intriguing. I think making state legislatures more powerful relative to the federal government–and thus voting for them more important–could be good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/49 "2011-08-16T21:07:48Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > If you think this is a good argument for persuading me, forget it. I rarely have a problem with _too few politicians_. If you dislike politicians, why would you want to give politicians the power to select your representation for you? ---
**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, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/50 "2011-08-16T21:15:42Z")
Never mind ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/51 "2011-08-16T21:32:23Z")
The silliness that Illinois went through when trying to replace Obama should make anti-17thers pause. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/52 "2011-08-16T21:51:11Z")
Captain Amazing: > [@](#): > > 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. If this was really the issue, then the 17th Amendment is an overly powerful baby + bathwater solution. They could have just called for popular election only if the state legislature failed to pick a Senator by a certain deadline. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/53 "2011-08-16T21:59:38Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > If this was really the issue, then the 17th Amendment is an overly powerful baby + bathwater solution. They could have just called for popular election only if the state legislature failed to pick a Senator by a certain deadline. It wasn’t _the_ issue. It was one of many issues. The system was corrupt and broken, and solving institutional problems with elections was popular at that time. (Recalls, primary elections, and initiatives also date from the Progressive Era.) That said, some of the anti-17th proposals do address the gridlock issue by saying that senators should be selected by the largest house of the legislature. The patronage issue is endemic to legislative election to any office, though. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857/54 "2011-08-17T02:40:36Z")
For much of the first 60 years of America we really only had one political party. It was a big tent party with different, warring factions, but at the end of the day the “battle lines” weren’t drawn in such a way that Senate appointments turned into never-ending wars in the State house. In the lead up to the Civil War that started to change, and it got no better, but in fact worse after the Civil War. Some States had vacant seats for months and even in a few cases years (in one case both of Delaware’s seats were vacant for more than 2 years time) because legislature could not agree on anyone to appoint to the office. Oregon had also worked out a scheme to allow an end-run around the whole system, by having State legislators submit to a “pledge” system where they promised their vote to a specific candidate for U.S. Senate when they themselves were elected (not dissimilar from voting for a “pledged” elector to the Electoral College.) The Senate routinely shot down amendments designed to allow for direct election, but as everyone knows 2/3ds of the States can call a constitutional convention and propose amendments without the approval of Congress. This is one of the few moments in history where this almost happened, and it was perilously close to 2/3rds of the state signing on for one of these when the Senate capitulated (partly out of fear of what could come from an open-ended, State-called constitutional convention that would be able to amend the constitution with no congressional oversight.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-whats-the-problem-with-the-17th-amendment/592857.md?page=2)