Repeal the 17th Amendment
By, Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
9/5/23
17th Amendment Considerations/Debate/Controversy
The purpose of the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1913, was to change the method of electing Senators. Prior to the amendment, Senators were chosen by state legislatures. The 17th Amendment established the direct popular election of Senators, allowing citizens to vote for their Senators through a popular vote.
The intention behind the 17th Amendment was to address concerns regarding corruption and the influence of special interests in the selection of Senators. It aimed to increase transparency and democratic accountability by giving the people a direct voice in the election of Senators, similar to the election of Representatives in the House of Representatives.
Supporters of the 17th Amendment argued that it would reduce political favoritism, increase responsiveness to public opinion, and eliminate backroom deals and corruption that could occur in the selection of Senators by state legislatures. They believed that direct elections would make Senators more accountable to the people they represent.
By shifting the power to elect Senators from state legislatures to the people, the 17th Amendment aimed to democratize the process and ensure that Senators would represent the will of the voters in their states.
However, some critics of the 17th Amendment argue that it has had unintended consequences, such as reducing the influence of states in the federal government and weakening the balance of power between the states and the federal government.
Overall, the 17th Amendment was intended to promote a more democratic and accountable process for electing Senators by allowing the citizens of each state to directly choose their representatives in the Senate.
Arguments against the 17th Amendment:
Critics of the 17th Amendment have raised several arguments against its implementation. Here are some of the common criticisms:
1. Weakening of State Authority: One major criticism is that the 17th Amendment eroded the authority and representation of individual states within the federal government. Prior to the amendment, Senators were chosen by state legislatures, which ensured that states had a direct say in federal decision-making. Critics argue that the direct election of Senators shifted power away from the states and centralized it in the federal government.
2. Loss of Federalism: Critics contend that the 17th Amendment undermined the principles of federalism, which emphasize a balance of power between the central government and individual states. They argue that the amendment upset the delicate equilibrium established by the Founding Fathers, as Senators became more aligned with national party politics rather than the interests of their respective states.
3. Increased Populist Influence: Opponents of the 17th Amendment argue that direct election of Senators led to the rise of populism, with Senators appealing to popular sentiment rather than acting as a check on the passions of the majority. They believe that Senators, who were previously selected by state legislatures, were more likely to consider long-term state interests and act as a counterbalance to the House of Representatives.
4. Loss of Accountability: Critics contend that the direct election of Senators reduced accountability. With Senators relying on popular votes, they argue that Senators became more focused on campaigning and catering to popular opinion rather than engaging in careful deliberation and making decisions in the best interests of their states.
5. Encroachment on State Sovereignty: Some critics argue that the 17th Amendment weakened the ability of states to protect their own interests by removing their direct influence in the Senate. They believe that Senators chosen by state legislatures would have a better understanding of state-specific issues and would advocate for their state’s needs in the federal government.
It is important to note that opinions on the 17th Amendment and its impact vary, and these criticisms represent some of the arguments put forth by its opponents.
Arguments for the 17th Amendment:
Supporters of the 17th Amendment put forth several arguments in favor of its implementation. Here are some of the common arguments made:
1. Increased Democratic Accountability: Proponents of the 17th Amendment argue that the direct election of Senators enhanced democratic accountability. By allowing citizens to directly vote for Senators, it ensured that Senators would be directly answerable to the people they represent. This was seen as a way to reduce corruption, increase transparency, and make Senators more responsive to public opinion.
2. Elimination of Special Interest Influence: Supporters of the amendment believed that the indirect selection of Senators by state legislatures enabled the influence of special interests and political machines. They argued that the direct election of Senators would reduce the power of political bosses and ensure that Senators were chosen based on the will of the people rather than backroom deals or favoritism.
3. Representation of Individual Citizens: The 17th Amendment was seen as a way to give individual citizens a direct voice in national politics. It extended the principle of representative democracy to the Senate, allowing citizens to participate in the selection of both their Representatives in the House and their Senators.
4. Reflecting Changing Political Landscape: Supporters of the amendment argued that the original method of selecting Senators, where state legislatures appointed them, was no longer suitable for a changing political landscape. With the rise of political parties and increased engagement of the general public in politics, they believed that Senators should be chosen through a more direct and democratic process.
5. Enhancing Public Trust and Legitimacy: The 17th Amendment was seen as a way to enhance public trust in the political system and improve the legitimacy of the Senate. Supporters believed that direct elections would make Senators more accountable to the people, thereby increasing public confidence in the Senate as a representative institution.
These arguments reflect the perspective of those who favored the 17th Amendment and believed that the direct election of Senators would improve democratic representation and accountability within the federal government.
Changes in the dynamics of the Senate due to the 17th Amendment:
The 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was ratified in 1913, significantly changed the dynamics of the Senate by altering the method of selecting Senators. Prior to the amendment, Senators were chosen by state legislatures, but the amendment introduced the direct popular election of Senators. This change had several notable effects:
1. Democratic Legitimacy: The direct election of Senators through popular vote increased the democratic legitimacy of the Senate. Senators were now chosen by the people themselves, similar to how members of the House of Representatives were elected. This change was seen as a way to strengthen the democratic nature of the Senate and enhance its representation of the will of the people.
2. Shift in Political Accountability: With the direct election of Senators, their political accountability shifted from state legislatures to the general public. Senators became more answerable to the voters in their respective states, as they now had to campaign and win popular support to be elected or re-elected. This change aimed to make Senators more responsive to the concerns and interests of their constituents.
3. Weakening of State Influence: The 17th Amendment reduced the influence of state governments in the selection of Senators. Previously, state legislatures appointed Senators, allowing states to directly voice their interests and concerns in the federal government. However, with direct elections, Senators became less tied to the priorities of state legislatures and were more inclined to align themselves with national party politics and popular sentiment.
4. Increased Partisanship: The direct election of Senators contributed to the rise of political parties and increased partisanship within the Senate. Senators now had to appeal to the broader electorate and align themselves with party platforms to secure popular support. This shift led to a stronger party influence in the Senate and affected the dynamics of legislative decision-making.
5. Campaigning and Fundraising: The 17th Amendment introduced campaigning and fundraising as essential aspects of Senate elections. Senators had to engage in state-wide campaigns to win popular support, which involved addressing a larger electorate and promoting their policy positions. This change increased the importance of fundraising and campaigning skills for Senators, as they needed financial resources and public visibility to run successful election campaigns.
Overall, the 17th Amendment transformed the dynamics of the Senate by making Senators directly accountable to the people, reducing the influence of state governments, increasing partisanship, and introducing the need for campaigning and fundraising. These changes had a profound impact on the nature of Senate elections, the behavior of Senators, and the relationship between Senators and their constituents.