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?
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
Misguided? Only if you aren't a fan of democracy. What's so misguided about letting people choose their leaders?
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].
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?
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.
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.