House of the States: No 17th Amendment

WI the 17th Amendment allowing statewide election of senators hadn't been proposed or failed ratification? How long could it be maintained, and how would the Presidencies and Senate be different than OTL?
 
The 17th was passed to Get Big Money and it's special interests out of Politics.

If you take a group of early 1900's Editorials in favor of the 17th and cross out -The 17 Admendment- and take a group of todays Editorials in favor of campaign finance reform, and cross out -Campaign Finance Reform-
You can't tell the two apart.
 
It was a misguided action by the Progressives which has further maginalized the states in favor of the Federal Government. If the Progressives said that the 17th Amendment was necessary to keep the sky from falling we would be believing that to they day. Government and corruption unfortunately go together since they are both embodiments of being human.
 
Prior to the 17th Amendment I thought there were a number of instances where it was thought that people had literally bought seats in the US Senate by bribing state legislators.

In any event as thing are giving more power to State Legislators (who typically represent gerrymandered districts) would not be a good move
 
It was a misguided action by the Progressives which has further maginalized the states in favor of the Federal Government. If the Progressives said that the 17th Amendment was necessary to keep the sky from falling we would be believing that to they day. Government and corruption unfortunately go together since they are both embodiments of being human.

Misguided? Only if you aren't a fan of democracy. What's so misguided about letting people choose their leaders?
 
What would the butterflies be on US politics? Specifically the Presidencies? IOW like the special election procedure, where the Gov names the interim Senator.
 
Prior to the 17th Amendment I thought there were a number of instances where it was thought that people had literally bought seats in the US Senate by bribing state legislators.

In any event as thing are giving more power to State Legislators (who typically represent gerrymandered districts) would not be a good move

As opposed to the present day when the majority of Senators are millionaires who buy their seats with their personal fortunes
 
Misguided? Only if you aren't a fan of democracy. What's so misguided about letting people choose their leaders?

For the record, the Founding Fathers weren't so keen on democracy, and the Constitution guarantees "a republican form of government," not mob rule by the masses.

The Senate was intended as a body that would allow the states to keep a check on the federal government. With the 17th Amendment, the states largely lost that ability.

On the other hand, I agree that people should be electing their Senators. Perhaps one Senator should be elected by the people and one by the legislature in each state?
 
The Founding Fathers had to deal with an issue that disappeared in the twentieth century: a largely illiterate public. The original method of choosing senators assured they were selected by a literate body [a similar argument stands for the electoral college].
 
The Founding Fathers had to deal with an issue that disappeared in the twentieth century: a largely illiterate public. The original method of choosing senators assured they were selected by a literate body [a similar argument stands for the electoral college].

It hasn't disappeared. For all the deal about expanding the voter base there are probably more disinterested in politics and not bothering to vote (at least before the most recent election).
 
For the record, the Founding Fathers weren't so keen on democracy, and the Constitution guarantees "a republican form of government," not mob rule by the masses.

The Senate was intended as a body that would allow the states to keep a check on the federal government. With the 17th Amendment, the states largely lost that ability.

On the other hand, I agree that people should be electing their Senators. Perhaps one Senator should be elected by the people and one by the legislature in each state?

Never be so quick to generalize with the Founding Fathers. They were a large, diverse body of men. Regardless, the United States of America was explicitly meant to be a republic because it was originally a government of the states. However, the states themselves tended to accept democracy quite easily. Pennsylvania, for instance, had universal male suffrage right from the beginning, with only a small number of checks on the ability of a majority to do whatever they wanted.
 
Misguided? Only if you aren't a fan of democracy. What's so misguided about letting people choose their leaders?


Agreed, lest we forget about what happened with the governor of illinois and Barack Obama's replacement. Senators already have a disproportionate amount of power(compaired to the house), making it so they are less accountable to the people is less than great in my opinion.
 
Agreed, lest we forget about what happened with the governor of illinois and Barack Obama's replacement. Senators already have a disproportionate amount of power(compaired to the house), making it so they are less accountable to the people is less than great in my opinion.

What exactly did happen with the Governor of Illinois and Obama's replacement? It appears more that he was hounded from office for just shooting his mouth off rather than accepting any money.
 
Well Rod Blagojevich more or less tried to sell the senate seat which he was in charge of filling rather than having an election to replace Obama. Before the deal could be finished evidence turned up about it and so he never really got the chance to do it, so he appointed (name currently escapes me) in stead. However, if he hadn't been caught he most likely would have appointed someone who actually bribed him for the appointment. So although he never actually sold the senate seat, he more or less had every intention to do so, he just got caught. I suppose you could make the Sideshow Bob argument "Nobody ever gets the nobel prize for attempted physics."
 
Well Rod Blagojevich more or less tried to sell the senate seat which he was in charge of filling rather than having an election to replace Obama. Before the deal could be finished evidence turned up about it and so he never really got the chance to do it, so he appointed (name currently escapes me) in stead. However, if he hadn't been caught he most likely would have appointed someone who actually bribed him for the appointment. So although he never actually sold the senate seat, he more or less had every intention to do so, he just got caught. I suppose you could make the Sideshow Bob argument "Nobody ever gets the nobel prize for attempted physics."

Unfortunately in Blagojevich's case its predominately 'most likely' and 'more or less had every intention to do so' and not one ounce of evidence.
 
Unfortunately in Blagojevich's case its predominately 'most likely' and 'more or less had every intention to do so' and not one ounce of evidence.

Well I wouldn't say that there was no evidence, there was a recording where he is heard saying:

"it's a fucking valuable thing, you just don't give it away for nothing", and that if "If I don't get what I want...I'll just take the Senate seat myself"

Although he isn't heard saying "I want to get lots of money from someone in exchange for appointing them to the senate seat." But I think it was close enough.
 
Top