John Cox

Thoughts on the 17th Amendment

I thought I would write a little bit about everyone's favorite subject: The 17th Amendment to the US Constitution. It's an interesting mix of a civics lesson gone awry, history lesson of the actual reach of William Randolf Hearst and media to influence the will of the people, and why as you get closer to democracy, we realize that as a group of humans have no absolutely no business making collective decisions. It's the perfect political storm which has changed the course of US History.

Before I go on, let me explain my political views a bit, because I rarely talk about them on this blog. I am almost 36, with a family. I would classify myself closest to the Lieberman Democrats. I have split my votes between Republicans and Democrats for president since being of voting age. As I get older, I get a bit more conservative in my thoughts and beliefs, but I couldn't disagree more with the Republican party on certain issues particularly on the social side. Where I do agree though, is believe in fiscal conservatism (which over the past 15 or so years, the Democrats have shown they are better at in my opinion). I believe in the self defense of this nation, and feel that is the primary role of the government. I am not actively involved in politics, although I do vote every year for my civic duty. I spent nearly 10 years in the military as well, where some of my thoughts were shaped. Finally, I am not a politics-junky. I think there is corruption throughout the system, but it's never as bad as it seems, nor as good as it seems. Our nation has a way of balancing through the good times and bad, in spite of the ever increasing split between our internal ideologies.

With those self proclaimed thoughts in mind...

Please read the WikiPedia article on the subject for a little background information. Also, take a moment to read the pro / con articles on the subject. It's a fascinating read for those that are not familiar with the subject. For those that do not have the attention span for the background information, the current system of election of Senators was not something that the constitution allowed for the first 120 or so years. Instead, Senators were appointed by the individual state legislative bodies. The idea was that the states would have a part in the overall federal system.

This system for Senators was in part, a mini-electoral college. The House of Representatives was supposed to support the will of the collective people, while the Senate was supposed to represent the will of the States. Since the people's collective will changes as quickly as a prom dress comes off, the House is elected to a two year term. This allows for the mood to change in the nation, and for the federal government to respond to that mood change. It allows for partisan rhetoric, it allows for pandering to the mood of the nation, and it allows for our voice to be heard in a manner that while decisions and actions can be made, they aren't ignoring the people.

The Senate though was set up completely different. Instead of today's version, "The Super House", it was a collection of appointed representatives from the States. This made the state governments relevant in the overall decisions of the federal government. We still elect the state officials, but those are our representatives on our state issues. They in turn appoint our officials to the legislative branch to counter balance the collective mood for the good of the individual in the state.

This system worked for years, but due to a collective mood swing brought upon by William Randolf Hearst, it changed. The thought at the time was that by allowing the state's to appoint, rather than popular elections that it allowed corruption in the process. It was muckraking at its finest, and has had long reaching impact on our affairs today.

Just a few points of why this is a flawed Amendment.

1. Which is easier to corrupt, a single person that has to fund raise and pander on issues to those that bring in the most money, or an entire legislative body elected in your state elections? While, yes each are corruptible, I would argue that it is much easier to have the will of the state's people heard from politicians that are not involved in Federal decisions. Yes, they are still elected, but I would doubt that their highest contributer to their elections are from an out of state corporation. Their interest would be in the in-state contributions, and thus the corruption would still be on a local impact rather than national.


2. We have created a "Super House of Representatives" without a fair distinction between the two. The Senate has 6 year terms to resist the changing moods of the nation. However, at the end of the day, do you see any difference besides stature of the Senate, between the House? While they have different rules of operation, and some procedural differences, they are still a vastly similar body without differing functions in the overall governing legislation of the people. Do you have any faith that your voice is to be more likely heard by a Senator than by a Representative? At least the Representatives are elected from a much smaller pool of registered voters.


3. It completely distorts the balance of power between the state and the federal government, which in turn distorts the decisions that are being made and the motivation of those decisions. You are less of the process in the federal system than when you elected your state legislators locally, and they collectively appointed. In turn, your interests are not served. I remember hearing a sound byte not so long ago from Harry Reid that his job was to his fellow Democratic Senators (sorry, no citation, and not exactly quoted). Sorry, Harry, your job is to the people, not the other Senators, regardless of being the Senate Majority Leader. This is not to pick on the Democrats or Harry Reid in particular, because the Republicans were and are just as bad with this thought process.

The more I read on the subject, the more frustrated I get in the current system. That said, I have always been much more on historical impact rather than current impact when I think of politics. My views could well be formed from well thought out fallacies. I encourage you to think and see other view points on the issue. Just today I ran across this forum post debating the issue. The counter points are particularly salient.