A week or so ago, I wrote about Sen. Smith’s SJR 3 concerning an attempt to rescind Indiana’s ratification of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the one that allows direct election of U.S. Senators instead of their selection by the various state legislatures.)
Yesterday, Alan Greenblatt, writing for NPR had an article entitled “Rethinking the 17th Amendment: An Old Idea Gets Fresh Opposition” (h/t Sacha). It appears to be one of those ALEC things, popular among some conservatives. Ted Cruz says that direct election of U.S. Senators instead of having them selected by state legislatures is a reason federal power expanded.
On the other hand:
The 17th Amendment was one of several innovations during the so-called Progressive Era meant to promote direct democracy, such as ballot initiatives, recall elections and party primaries.
The idea was to circumvent the stranglehold that various monopolies and oligarchies had on state officials of the day.
“The state legislatures were just a mess, especially with regard to this issue,” says John Hibbing, a political scientist at the University of Nebraska who has studied the amendment. “People were just buying their way in. It was a real cesspool.”
But, the ALEC thinking goes — or at least the rhetoric — that this change removed the voice of the states themselves in the federal government (as opposed to, I suppose, citizens from that state who are, at the same time, citizens of the country as a whole.) As a practical matter, the article points out that Republicans effectively control 26 states versus Democratic control of 18 with the other 6 split. (Having only 6 split states is a telling statistic about the partisan split of the country.)
“I just don’t see how it could possibly be a winner for anyone running,” says University of Illinois political scientist William Bernhard. “To say we’re going to become less democratic and have fewer votes, that doesn’t resonate.”
Pretty much.
“Less democratic” is a great idea. We’re a republic, not a democracy.
So your model is the People’s Republic of China?
Illiterate internet libertarians would be better off if they learned: (1) that the US is a republic *and* a democracy; (2) that all modern western countries are republics *and* democracies; and (3) that “republic” is not the opposite of “democracy”.
Most importantly, internet libertarians need to stop pretending that every time someone describes the US as a “democracy,” they are using the word incorrectly. Internet libertarians need to stop pretending that people using the word “democracy” were actually using the term “direct democracy” or “pure democracy.” They were not, and it’s dishonest to pretend that they were. The US is a democracy. And a republic. The US is not a direct democracy or a pure democracy…but no one is claiming that it is. No one ever claims that.
“So your model is the People’s Republic of China?”
No, the United States of America. It’s a shame you were never shewn our Constitution. Pity you didn’t like what the Founding Fathers created.
The Founding Fathers created a single “People’s House.” It was clearly not in their design to create two, and the revision has not proved profitable.
The Founders also opposed political parties. ALEC’s interest is in buying off the Senate at the state level. National groups pouring millions into out of state elections is destroying “the People’s House.”
It is interesting how a common and natural response for many people is to say we are not a democracy, we are a republic. America has it’s own unique version of republicanism that has not been produced before on this earth. A more accurate description would be to call us a representative democracy. It is not a bad thing to be a democracy. I think this country has gotten so divided that some would prefer to deny the truth about their own nation’s form of government and call it something vague simply to not sound like their opposition.
” The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”” http://www.ourrepubliconline.com/Author/21
“Franklin’s response was technically accurate, but insufficient as a full explanation of what the framers had wrought. The Constitution that emerged from the Convention in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787 was in many respects unmistakenably republican. It emphatically rejected notions of hereditary monarchy and aristocracy, and while it stopped well short of creating a DEMOCRATIC republic, including as it did an indirectly elected Senate and president, it did recognize ‘we the people’ of the nation as the ultimate source of political authority. But the debates in the Assembly Room of the State House during the summer of 1787 and those in the individual states during the battle over ratification had revealed widely varying understandings of the way in which America’s new republican government should operate. As the new federal government commenced operations in March of 1789, Americans continued to discover over such vitally important issues as the proper division of power between the states and federal governments, the nature and extent of executive power, and whether their new nation should be a genuinely democratic republic.” Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution, Richard Beaman, pgs. 416-417.
So ALEC, which is run and funded by oligarchs, is trying to repeal an amendment that was meant to limit the power of oligarchs. What I don’t get is, how do people aren’t oligarchs keep getting swindled into the idea that the Koch Brothers gives a poop about their lives?
It is all about gerrymandering. You can gerrymander state legislatures, you can gerrymander congressional districts, but you just can’t gerrymander a whole state. So if you can’t control the senate selection process as is, just try to change the rules so that senate selection is back in the control of the gerrymandered legislatures.
Where is that like button???
So… we *shouldn’t* be allowed to vote for those representing our interests in Washington, but we *should* be able to vote on who gets what rights. You know that Bizarro universe in Superman…
The U.S. Congress exists as part of a unique compromise. The House chamber was to represent the general will and the Senate chamber was to represent the will of the states. If the Senate is going to represent the general will just like the House, then there is no point for a separate Senate to exist.
You don’t see in the Canadian Parliament, for example, a separate voting body comprised of two members per Province.
Absolutely agreed, Rick. The Senate is currently irrelevant and redundant. We don’t need two Houses of Representatives. Either return the Senate to the legislatures or dispense with it.
This ignores the fact that Senators are elected “at large” from the state as a whole. Representatives are elected from (often gerrymandered) districts. In that sense, the Senators represent the State because their constituency is the entire state, not just one region.
This ignores that that the only way a Senate makes sense is if it is elected by the state legislatures. The Senate is an avowedly undemocratic body. Wyoming has as many senators as California. The Constitution provided for a single democratic body. The House was the citizens’ voice, and we need to return it to one Congressman for every 30,000 citizens.
The Senate was the deliberately undemocratic body where all states, as equals among themselves, confer. Having two directly elected bodies makes nonsense of the Constitution.
So what’s the problem that needs fixed, again? Seems to me you laid out a pretty good case for the status quo.
I follow your point.
In my mind, gerrymandering is a different discussion.
I see the location of state lines as the biggest gerrymander of them all. Some political scientists have proposed that state lines be redrawn.
There are proposals which would reduce gerrymandering. The most common proposal would be to have districts drawn by nonpartisan committees.
In Germany and Israel you can win a seat in Parliament based upon your Party’s proportion of the national vote.