Suppose the Repeal of the 17th Amendment

1. Do we understand what caused the 17th Amendment?
2. Was the 17th Amendment possibly caused or exasperated by the abolishment of slavery?
3. Do we understand the change in game theory of the 17th Amendment?
4. Do we agree to legitimacy of the game theories of the House and Senate?
5. If we are being jipped by a faulty game theory that can be traced to an Amendment, then what?
6. What would the repeal amendment read?

Suppose the 17th Amendment is repealed on the theory that the evolution of the reorganized senate has adversely effected our appreciation of the founders’ intentions to test the state governments for the proper representation of state law; and that any circumstantial situations that caused the inadequacies of the state legislatures in the past have now been corrected, or can be corrected, if the process returns to the status that lead to the enactment of the 17th Amendment.

I believe that the 17th Amendment eliminated a check and balance test on the competency of states to organize good government.

The 17th Amendment did not encourage people to reform their state government, and state governments have been perpetually faulty, or otherwise, considered "corrupt."

The reason is because nobody knows how to fix the state governments and nobody cares because the media tends to focus on the federal legislature - right???

Prof_Lunaphiles said:

I believe that the 17th Amendment eliminated a check and balance test on the competency of states to organize good government.

The 17th Amendment did not encourage people to reform their state government, and state governments have been perpetually faulty, or otherwise, considered "corrupt."

The reason is because nobody knows how to fix the state governments and nobody cares because the media tends to focus on the federal legislature - right???

Click to expand...

wrong

mrjurrs said:

wrong

Click to expand...

What is your theory???

Sent from my Lenovo YT3-850F using Tapatalk

Prof_Lunaphiles said:

I believe that the 17th Amendment eliminated a check and balance test on the competency of states to organize good government.

The 17th Amendment did not encourage people to reform their state government, and state governments have been perpetually faulty, or otherwise, considered "corrupt."

The reason is because nobody knows how to fix the state governments and nobody cares because the media tends to focus on the federal legislature - right???

Click to expand...

First, your post presumes state governments are corrupt or otherwise ineffective. While corruption was a stated basis for the 17th Amendment, there isn’t much evidence that corruption was much of a problem in senatorial elections, rather than an issue created by direct senatorial election proponents and the media.

Potentially, the other cited problem of indirect senatorial elections, deadlocks, might have forced state legislatures to learn to work toward consensus so as to not go unrepresented or underrepresented in the Senate. So, inasmuch as it is desirable for a legislature to work toward consensus, then indirect senatorial elections would result in a more effective state legislature. But, it appears state governments have learned to work toward consensus in the last 100 years since the ratification of the 17th Amendment.

An issue to consider with indirect senatorial elections is the focus of the populace on electing state legislators based upon their senate vote, rather than his or her qualifications to be a state legislator. So, while the media may ignore state government for federal government at this time, indirect elections could lead to the electorate ignoring their state legislatures for the Senate.

I had never considered whether the abolition of slavery played a role in finally ratifying the 17th Amendment. Having direct senatorial elections would obviously allow the federal government to take a larger role in ensuring black suffrage. But, direct senatorial election amendments were passed by the House (2/3 of the House voted in favor) several times before the Civil War, and the 17th Amendment was ratified some 50 years after the abolition. So, I don’t think the procedural posture of the Amendment suggests the abolition of slavery had any effect.

Finally, I have never studied game theory. However, the two most obvious differences between the House and Senate were the lengths of terms and the methods of elections. The 17th altered the Senate in that Senators are beholden to the people of the State rather than the state legislature. The result is the motivations of a state’s senators become more similar to the combined motivations of the state’s representatives. Care to explain your view on game theory relative to the 17th Amendment.

clapee said:

First, your post presumes state governments are corrupt or otherwise ineffective. While corruption was a stated basis for the 17th Amendment, there isn’t much evidence that corruption was much of a problem in senatorial elections, rather than an issue created by direct senatorial election proponents and the media.

Potentially, the other cited problem of indirect senatorial elections, deadlocks, might have forced state legislatures to learn to work toward consensus so as to not go unrepresented or underrepresented in the Senate. So, inasmuch as it is desirable for a legislature to work toward consensus, then indirect senatorial elections would result in a more effective state legislature. But, it appears state governments have learned to work toward consensus in the last 100 years since the ratification of the 17th Amendment.

Click to expand...

I disagree. There is a considerable amount of evidence to demonstrate corruption of the appointment of Senators prior to the 17th Amendment. While it was the State legislatures that confirmed the appointment, it was the Governor who made the nominations, and that is where the problem existed - with the Governors. Even in recent times we have Governor Rod Blagojevich being convicted of selling Barack Obama's Senate seat in 2009. This was amplified ten fold before the 17th Amendment, when you had corrupt lobbyists who completely controlled State Governors, forcing them to nominate their candidates to be Senators (assuming they wanted to be reelected as Governor).

Prior to the 17th Amendment the Senate was utterly corrupt, neither working for the States interests or the people. Senators were bought and paid for by lobbyists.

From what I know of the issue, conservatives have tended to argue that direct election of Senators was a mistake. As a lefty, I always assumed that businesses found it easier to influence state legislatures, hence the conservative bias against 17. The amendment was part of progressive legislation that included stuff like initiatives and recalls.

In general, conservatives have tended to distrust direct democracy. I remember a friend concerned about what he called
"mob-ocracy," and he was of the old quaint belief that only property owners should be allowed to vote. I believe that this is the same impulse behind voter ID laws, the voter fraud snipe hunt, ending Sunday voting in states that had it, and the hyper-partisan redistricting seen recently in North Carolina.

One could construct defensible arguments for all this, but they are largely non-starters in the current real world.

Nickyjo said:

From what I know of the issue, conservatives have tended to argue that direct election of Senators was a mistake. As a lefty, I always assumed that businesses found it easier to influence state legislatures, hence the conservative bias against 17. The amendment was part of progressive legislation that included stuff like initiatives and recalls.

In general, conservatives have tended to distrust direct democracy. I remember a friend concerned about what he called
"mob-ocracy," and he was of the old quaint belief that only property owners should be allowed to vote. I believe that this is the same impulse behind voter ID laws, the voter fraud snipe hunt, ending Sunday voting in states that had it, and the hyper-partisan redistricting seen recently in North Carolina.

One could construct defensible arguments for all this, but they are largely non-starters in the current real world.

Click to expand...

Conservatives tend to support repealing the 17th Amendment in order to get back to what the Founders originally intended, that the only source of democracy at the national level would be in the House of Representatives. Senators and Presidents would be determined by the State legislatures.

However, in practice most State legislatures defer to their Governor's nominations. Which ends up resulting in massive corruption when left unchecked, and there is no checks or balances in this particular case. As long as State legislatures confirm the overwhelming majority of the nominations by Governors, then Governors can be easily bought and/or blackmailed.

Glitch said:

I disagree. There is a considerable amount of evidence to demonstrate corruption of the appointment of Senators prior to the 17th Amendment. While it was the State legislatures that confirmed the appointment, it was the Governor who made the nominations, and that is where the problem existed - with the Governors. Even in recent times we have Governor Rod Blagojevich being convicted of selling Barack Obama's Senate seat in 2009. This was amplified ten fold before the 17th Amendment, when you had corrupt lobbyists who completely controlled State Governors, forcing them to nominate their candidates to be Senators (assuming they wanted to be reelected as Governor).

Prior to the 17th Amendment the Senate was utterly corrupt, neither working for the States interests or the people. Senators were bought and paid for by lobbyists.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I was unaware that governors nominated senatorial candidates for the legislatures’ consideration . I know the mechanisms went through many iterations, but had never heard of that. Of course, couldn’t the legislature have disregarded the candidate put forward by the governor? Such a state law seems like it would have been arguably unconstitutional. For example, neither Abraham Lincoln nor Stephen Douglas were on the senatorial ballot when the two had their famous debates. I’m not suggesting Illinois’ governor nominated the senatorial candidate(s), but my impression was that state legislatures could vote for whomever they wanted.

Secondly, I know that the common refrain was that the senatorial election process was corrupted, but I have only seen a few anecdotal examples, which don’t really provide any details of the alleged corruption. They just tend to be conclusory in nature that certain elections (some sources suggest most) were corrupted. But, I haven’t looked into this issue much. I know some scholars suggest the alleged corruption was quite overblown. Any resources you’d suggest?

Nickyjo said:

From what I know of the issue, conservatives have tended to argue that direct election of Senators was a mistake. As a lefty, I always assumed that businesses found it easier to influence state legislatures, hence the conservative bias against 17. The amendment was part of progressive legislation that included stuff like initiatives and recalls.

In general, conservatives have tended to distrust direct democracy. I remember a friend concerned about what he called
"mob-ocracy," and he was of the old quaint belief that only property owners should be allowed to vote. I believe that this is the same impulse behind voter ID laws, the voter fraud snipe hunt, ending Sunday voting in states that had it, and the hyper-partisan redistricting seen recently in North Carolina.

One could construct defensible arguments for all this, but they are largely non-starters in the current real world.

Click to expand...

I think most serious conservatives take the view of Justice Scalia in their apprehension to the 17th Amendment. In short, it disrupted a check that state governments had on expanding federal power. The presumption was that state governments would be less likely to cede their powers to the central government than the citizens-at-large and would elect Senators who would enforce federalism. It is interesting that just two decades following the 17th Amendment saw an almost unfathomable expansion of federal authority when compared to the turn of the century.

I believe if your friend thinks that only landowners should enjoy the franchise, then he’s an elitist prick and not a conservative.

But, asinine views like that cannot be lumped in with voter ID laws. It is incredibly easy to secure a valid ID. And, the statistics on how voter ID laws affect different demographics are sketchy at best. For example, in Texas during the 2016 election, most people who did not possess proper identification at the time they voted actually had proper ID, they just didn’t bring it with them. I personally think it’s reprehensible to assume minorities are unable to secure a government-issued ID. I assume everyone is pretty capable of accomplishing that simple task. Finally, if we’re concerned with the integrity of our elections, which seems to be a preoccupation right now, at least let’s implement common sense and easy protections.

Beyond voter ID, though, I disagree with the majority of restrictions on voting.

clapee said:

Interesting. I was unaware that governors nominated senatorial candidates for the legislatures’ consideration . I know the mechanisms went through many iterations, but had never heard of that. Of course, couldn’t the legislature have disregarded the candidate put forward by the governor? Such a state law seems like it would have been arguably unconstitutional. For example, neither Abraham Lincoln nor Stephen Douglas were on the senatorial ballot when the two had their famous debates. I’m not suggesting Illinois’ governor nominated the senatorial candidate(s), but my impression was that state legislatures could vote for whomever they wanted.

Secondly, I know that the common refrain was that the senatorial election process was corrupted, but I have only seen a few anecdotal examples, which don’t really provide any details of the alleged corruption. They just tend to be conclusory in nature that certain elections (some sources suggest most) were corrupted. But, I haven’t looked into this issue much. I know some scholars suggest the alleged corruption was quite overblown. Any resources you’d suggest?

Click to expand...

Of course the State legislature could disregard the Governor's nomination, or reject the nomination, and I'm sure that did happen. The State legislatures could vote for whomever they wished to be US Senator prior to the 17th Amendment. There is no requirement that the Governor be involved in the process at all. It just became the custom, like a President giving the State of the Union address before Congress. Not required, just customary.

During the "Gilded Age" of American politics (1870 to 1900) federal political power was stuck in a permanent partisan stalemate and corruption was widespread at both the State and federal levels. Patronage was particularly rife during that period in American history. It could be argued that patronage is what led James A. Garfield to being assassinated in 1881. It is what caused President Arthur to support the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883, the first real anti-patronage legislation.

It was also the political party bosses that nominated the candidates. Primaries didn't exist at that time. There is very little about American politics during the Gilded Age that we would be familiar with today. Which I believe is one of the reasons why some are advocating for the repeal of the 17th Amendment. They don't understand the times that led to the amendment in the first place. As everyone who understands the process knows, amending the US Constitution is not an easy process nor is ratification taken lightly by the State legislatures. At least 75% of the State legislatures had to believe that the amendment was absolutely necessary.

With regard to references, the best reference I can offer is Richard Hofstadter's "The Age of Reform" which won him a Pulitzer Prize for History in 1956. His book is primarily focused on the Age of Reform of from 1900 until 1930, but he does touch on the political corruption at the beginning of the 20th century.

clapee said:

I think most serious conservatives take the view of Justice Scalia in their apprehension to the 17th Amendment. In short, it disrupted a check that state governments had on expanding federal power. The presumption was that state governments would be less likely to cede their powers to the central government than the citizens-at-large and would elect Senators who would enforce federalism. It is interesting that just two decades following the 17th Amendment saw an almost unfathomable expansion of federal authority when compared to the turn of the century.

I believe if your friend thinks that only landowners should enjoy the franchise, then he’s an elitist prick and not a conservative.

But, asinine views like that cannot be lumped in with voter ID laws. It is incredibly easy to secure a valid ID. And, the statistics on how voter ID laws affect different demographics are sketchy at best. For example, in Texas during the 2016 election, most people who did not possess proper identification at the time they voted actually had proper ID, they just didn’t bring it with them. I personally think it’s reprehensible to assume minorities are unable to secure a government-issued ID. I assume everyone is pretty capable of accomplishing that simple task. Finally, if we’re concerned with the integrity of our elections, which seems to be a preoccupation right now, at least let’s implement common sense and easy protections.

Beyond voter ID, though, I disagree with the majority of restrictions on voting.

Click to expand...

Look, I don't think that voter ID itself is a big deal, but there is significant evidence that the GOP think it gives them a bit of an edge. Consider: vote ID appeared in all the southern states (plus Arizona, I believe, also part of the Act) covered by the Voting Rights Act shortly after the Supremes declared it out of date, a GOP operative in Pennsylvania listed voter ID on video as one of the factors that gave them an advantage, in some jurisdictions student ID is not valid while some gun permits are, laws ending Sunday voting hampered "souls to the polls" voting activities in black churches, and I saw a piece about another GOP activist in the Midwest who quit and went public when he was told that the purpose of the ID laws was to help the GOP. On top of this there was the whole voter fraud snipe hunt, the fantasy of three million illegals voting, Trump's New Hampshire absurdity, reduction of polling places in Latino parts of Phoenix producing huge wait times, and what a judge called the "surgical precision" gerrymandering to weaken the black vote in North Carolina.

It is pretty easy to construct a defensible argument that the GOP is responding to demographic changes they see as unfavorable by trying to limit the franchise. Voter ID is not the end of the world, but it is a solution in search of a problem that - not remarkably - benefits only one party. This is nowhere as bad as what the Democratic Party did in the Old South from post-reconstruction til 1960s when threatened by demographics, but it does resemble Mayor Daley's shenanigans in Chicago back in the day to frustrate reform democrats and republicans. Human nature.

Nickyjo said:

Look, I don't think that voter ID itself is a big deal, but there is significant evidence that the GOP think it gives them a bit of an edge. Consider: vote ID appeared in all the southern states (plus Arizona, I believe, also part of the Act) covered by the Voting Rights Act shortly after the Supremes declared it out of date, a GOP operative in Pennsylvania listed voter ID on video as one of the factors that gave them an advantage, in some jurisdictions student ID is not valid while some gun permits are, laws ending Sunday voting hampered "souls to the polls" voting activities in black churches, and I saw a piece about another GOP activist in the Midwest who quit and went public when he was told that the purpose of the ID laws was to help the GOP. On top of this there was the whole voter fraud snipe hunt, the fantasy of three million illegals voting, Trump's New Hampshire absurdity, reduction of polling places in Latino parts of Phoenix producing huge wait times, and what a judge called the "surgical precision" gerrymandering to weaken the black vote in North Carolina.

It is pretty easy to construct a defensible argument that the GOP is responding to demographic changes they see as unfavorable by trying to limit the franchise. Voter ID is not the end of the world, but it is a solution in search of a problem that - not remarkably - benefits only one party. This is nowhere as bad as what the Democratic Party did in the Old South from post-reconstruction til 1960s when threatened by demographics, but it does resemble Mayor Daley's shenanigans in Chicago back in the day to frustrate reform democrats and republicans. Human nature.

Click to expand...

Well, that assumes the reason it helps the GOP is not by limiting the voter fraud perpetrated by the Democrats and their interest groups.

clapee said:

Well, that assumes the reason it helps the GOP is not by limiting the voter fraud perpetrated by the Democrats and their interest groups. ��

Click to expand...

Obviously, we need a commission to study voter fraud... Oh wait, we had one.... What did it find? .... Crickets.

There is no way voter fraud could exist on any serious scale without it being discovered. Someone would have come forward by now to confess to be a fraudulent voter or vote fraud organizer. A Pulitzer would await the reporter who exposed it. But Saul Alinsky with all his genius organizing skills could not pull it off. It nevertheless remains a useful fantasy on the right and in Trump's strange brain: evil Mexican illegals voting in droves when they are not raping.

Prof_Lunaphiles said:

1. Do we understand what caused the 17th Amendment?
2. Was the 17th Amendment possibly caused or exasperated by the abolishment of slavery?
3. Do we understand the change in game theory of the 17th Amendment?
4. Do we agree to legitimacy of the game theories of the House and Senate?
5. If we are being jipped by a faulty game theory that can be traced to an Amendment, then what?
6. What would the repeal amendment read?

Suppose the 17th Amendment is repealed on the theory that the evolution of the reorganized senate has adversely effected our appreciation of the founders’ intentions to test the state governments for the proper representation of state law; and that any circumstantial situations that caused the inadequacies of the state legislatures in the past have now been corrected, or can be corrected, if the process returns to the status that lead to the enactment of the 17th Amendment.

Click to expand...

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established the popular election of United States senators by the people of the states. The amendment supersedes Article I, §3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures.

Why would you want to repeal it ?

Rich2018 said:

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established the popular election of United States senators by the people of the states. The amendment supersedes Article I, §3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures.

Why would you want to repeal it ?

Click to expand...

Why should it be repealed, because the Senator elected from a State no longer serves that State, they serve a political party. I do think that the people should be able to vote for their Senator, however, I also think that the State Legislatures should have the ability to recall a Senator any time they feel that the State is not being represented. It is the role of a Senator to be the mouthpiece for the State they represent and not the mouthpiece of a political party. In today's politics it is the political parties that pick the Senators, these Senator then prostitute themselves before the people in hopes of being elected, it comes down to those with the most money get the job.

Terryj said:

Why should it be repealed, because the Senator elected from a State no longer serves that State, they serve a political party. I do think that the people should be able to vote for their Senator, however, I also think that the State Legislatures should have the ability to recall a Senator any time they feel that the State is not being represented. It is the role of a Senator to be the mouthpiece for the State they represent and not the mouthpiece of a political party. In today's politics it is the political parties that pick the Senators, these Senator then prostitute themselves before the people in hopes of being elected, it comes down to those with the most money get the job.

Click to expand...

You don't understand politics

A senator (or congressman) is elected to be the REPRESENTATIVE his/her constituents not their delegate.

If he/she were their delegate he/she'd have to run a plebiscite before voting on any issue. Why then have them ?

You be left with consensus politics and the thing that rabid Republicans hate - a comparison with the direct democracy supposedly used in ancient Athens.