WI: No 17th Amendment

Mako-Chan · Dec 25, 2005

Suppose for whatever reasons, that the 17th Amendment was not passed, or else struck down by the courts. Consequently, Senators aren't elected by the people. What are the effects on history?

My apologies if this has been done before.

Straha · Dec 25, 2005

I don't think much changes from OTL other than a few deep south states not moving to popular elections of senators until the 30's or later.

NapoleonXIV · Dec 26, 2005

Clinton is probably impeached, since the Gingrich Congress was so lockstep partisan they would undoubtedly have elected a more partisan Senate. The country collapses economically as Republican "reforms" begin the gutting of the Clinton surplus before it's even really generated.

The populace, seeing what amounts to a Republican coup thwarting the clear will of the people, loses faith in government and clamors for direct election of Senators. Democratic majorities are in both houses by 1996 and Gore wins clear reelecton both then and in 2000 (he'd be able to run then since the two term limit doesn't count partials, I believe) since the Republicans no longer have enough influence to end the prosperity that has been restored.

Chengar Qordath · Dec 26, 2005

NapoleonXIV said:
Clinton is probably impeached, since the Gingrich Congress was so lockstep partisan they would undoubtedly have elected a more partisan Senate.

The Senators were chosen by the state legislatures, not the House of Representatives.

My guess would be that if the Senate remains in it's original form we see stronger state governments and more state's rights, as the Senate would still represent the interests of the States rather than the people of the states. I would guess that means that the US is retains more of it's federal system, as oppossed to the creeping centrism of OTL.

HARRY · Dec 27, 2005

If the state governors selected the two senators to represent the state and this changed every time a new governor was elected then there would be little chance of independent or even independent minded senators as a much stricter two party system would prevail.

Othniel · Dec 27, 2005

HARRY said:
If the state governors selected the two senators to represent the state and this changed every time a new governor was elected then there would be little chance of independent or even independent minded senators as a much stricter two party system would prevail.

Not quite so...there is even wider varity between individaul govenors than there are between the Senators. Senators serve on a six year term, and thus whom a govenor selects would become a more viable condition within their local state elections. This also would cause more funds to be placed into govenor elections, causing differances of parties to be shown at those levels. Mass. at this point would likely have at least one Republician Senator.

Some states have term limits on their govenors, such as Virginia, while other states don't, like Utah. This also means that govenors have a more likely chance of being elected than before...though they have shown to be strong (likely to be voted for, not good presidents is what I'm using strong as in this context) candidents in most cases for the past years (Wilson, Clinton, Bush, Reagan)

zoomar · Dec 27, 2005

I agree with Chengar. Having Senators chosen by state governments as opposed to the people reinforces the concept that the Senate is an assembly of States, not a popular body. In the long run, one of two things might happen: (1) As the concept of popular democracy becomes more prevalent, the Senate (possibly thru other hypothetical amendments) becomes something like the House of Lords - a largely ceremonial body with only limited purse-string power, or (2) the USA remains less unitary, and more confederal in its government.

MerryPrankster · Dec 27, 2005

NapoleonXIV said:
The populace, seeing what amounts to a Republican coup thwarting the clear will of the people, loses faith in government and clamors for direct election of Senators. Democratic majorities are in both houses by 1996 and Gore wins clear reelecton both then and in 2000 (he'd be able to run then since the two term limit doesn't count partials, I believe) since the Republicans no longer have enough influence to end the prosperity that has been restored.

The butterflies from no 17 Amendment would probably prevent the entire Gingrich-Clinton affair from ever happening.

And coup? Calling the impeachment of Bill Clinton a coup is ludicrous.

A coup by nature is illegal. Everything that the GOP Congress did was perfectly legal.

They did have better things to impeach Clinton for, though. He sent American forces to war in Kosovo without Congress's approval, which violates the various war powers' clauses in the Constitution. Granted, that took place during/after the impeachment process, so they'd have had to wait a bit.

Wendell · Dec 28, 2005

No Big Government?

Granted, World War I caused much of it.

The states would retain power in the federal government. Maybe the New Deal is derailed further in this TL?

Straha · Dec 28, 2005

I don't see how an amendment deciding electoral systems would affect new deal policies

MerryPrankster · Dec 28, 2005

Straha said:
I don't see how an amendment deciding electoral systems would affect new deal policies

One reason the 17th Amendment was pushed is b/c the Senate was very conservative (chosen as it was by state legislatures, who were easily influenced) and refused to pass the Progressive legislation.

Assuming the 17th Amendmnet isn't passed, it is likely that the US Senate would oppose many "radical" policies, especially those that expanded federal power.

An unfortunate side effect of this emphasis on states' rights is that the civil rights movement might have some problems, though I wonder if Senators from the Deep South chosen by the state legislatures (for whom most blacks could not vote) would be more difficult to overcome than popularly-elected Senators from the Deep South (for whom most blacks could not vote).

Derek Jackson · Dec 28, 2005

State legislatures have traditionally be outragously gerrymandered. Until the 1960s, when there was a court decision, there was not even any obligation to have equal populations for districts in state legislatures and in many cases rural populations had undue power.

However another response to the problem by Progressives might have been to put more effort into winning state legislatures,

By the Way how did an Amendment taking away a huge power from state legislatures get 36 state legislatures to ratify it?

Chengar Qordath · Dec 30, 2005

Derek Jackson said:
State legislatures have traditionally be outragously gerrymandered. Until the 1960s, when there was a court decision, there was not even any obligation to have equal populations for districts in state legislatures and in many cases rural populations had undue power.

In fairness, the national congressional districts in the United States were and are gerrymandered to a truly impressive degree as well, and the Senate was already the most malapportioned legislature in the free world.

Derek Jackson said:
However another response to the problem by Progressives might have been to put more effort into winning state legislatures.

I would imagine that is quite possible.

Derek Jackson said:
By the Way how did an Amendment taking away a huge power from state legislatures get 36 state legislatures to ratify it?

There was a lot of pressure for the change from the Progressives and Populists, as well as Hearst launched a major media campaign to sway public opinion in favour of the change. It hardly helped that the state legislatures frequently deadlocked on the selection of Senators; the most extreme case was Delaware, which had no Senate representation for four years because no agreement could be reached.