Opinion of the 17th amendment

[Indy Texas]

And why do conservatives hate it so much as of late? Is it because you can gerrymander a legislature but you can't gerrymander a collective decision by the people of a state?

[H. Ross Peron]

A tolerable reform.

[politicallefty]

It's better than what was before it. I probably would've preferred outright abolition of the Senate (short of adopting a parliamentary system).

[freefair]

It's better than what was before it. I probably would've preferred outright abolition of the Senate (short of adopting a parliamentary system).

It's hardly conservative to have a state appointed federal senate- look at Germany as an example.

[ElectionsGuy]

Freedom Amendment!

People represent the people better than the legislature represents the people (obviously). Also, because of gerrymandering, pre-17th amendment could many times just have appointed or elected a senator the people wouldn't of liked. The 17th amendment gives more power to the people, which is what we need in our country.

[RogueBeaver]

Freedom Amendment, obviously.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In one respect, I think it was a horrible amendment, and not for the usual reasons.  Congress approved the amendment and sent it to the states for only one reason, to keep a second constitutional convention from convening.  At the time the amendment was sent to the states, we were only two states short of having enough calling for another convention.  While the call was to propose this amendment, once called the convention could have proposed a number of other changes as well.

[Goldwater]

Freedom Amendment, obviously.

[RedSLC]

Freedom Amendment, obviously.

[Deus Naturae]

Freedom Amendment, obviously.

[Sopranos Republican]

Freedom Amendment, obviously.

[TDAS04]

Generally neutral.  Maybe slight FA, but overrated. 

[TNF]

Just abolish the f**king Senate

[Lief 🗽]

In one respect, I think it was a horrible amendment, and not for the usual reasons.  Congress approved the amendment and sent it to the states for only one reason, to keep a second constitutional convention from convening.  At the time the amendment was sent to the states, we were only two states short of having enough calling for another convention.  While the call was to propose this amendment, once called the convention could have proposed a number of other changes as well.

Interesting. I had no idea that was the case.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In one respect, I think it was a horrible amendment, and not for the usual reasons.  Congress approved the amendment and sent it to the states for only one reason, to keep a second constitutional convention from convening.  At the time the amendment was sent to the states, we were only two states short of having enough calling for another convention.  While the call was to propose this amendment, once called the convention could have proposed a number of other changes as well.

Interesting. I had no idea that was the case.

Yup, the Senate only approved it when it was clear that if they didn't there would be a convention, so they approved it not because they favored the change, but to forestall a convention.

[Indy Texas]

I ask this because apparently all four Republicans running for Texas lieutenant governor oppose direct election of US Senators.

Kind of ironic that David Dewhurst does. Maybe he's subtly trying to say the fact that Ted Cruz is in the Senate is proof enough that the people cannot be entrusted with this responsibility.

FWIW, if the Texas Legislature had had to choose a senator last year, it sure as hell would not have been Ted Cruz.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

And why do conservatives hate it so much as of late? Is it because you can gerrymander a legislature but you can't gerrymander a collective decision by the people of a state?

Because they hate democracy.

[RogueBeaver]

I ask this because apparently all four Republicans running for Texas lieutenant governor oppose direct election of US Senators.

Kind of ironic that David Dewhurst does. Maybe he's subtly trying to say the fact that Ted Cruz is in the Senate is proof enough that the people cannot be entrusted with this responsibility.

FWIW, if the Texas Legislature had had to choose a senator last year, it sure as hell would not have been Ted Cruz.

Or insurgent candidates generally, unless they were well-connected in their Leg like Toomey and Rubio.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Just abolish the f**king Senate

Basically. The Senate was created to appease people who didn't think citizens would be intelligent enough to vote "the right people" into the House. Until the ratification of the 17th Amendment, the Senate was nothing more than a cesspool of corruption and stupidity.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Just abolish the f**king Senate

Basically. The Senate was created to appease people who didn't think citizens would be intelligent enough to vote "the right people" into the House. Until the ratification of the 17th Amendment, the Senate was nothing more than a cesspool of corruption and stupidity.

The 17th didn't really do anything to clean it up.  Heck, many States already had gone to having their Senators be popularly elected, just as all States since the Civil War (with the exception of newly-admitted Colorado in 1876) have had their Electors be popularly elected.

[barfbag]

It's a good way to get the electorate more involved with both houses of government. However, this raises the question of would Americans be pickier about their congressmen if their votes regarded who was elected to the senate? I'm saying it could possibly lead to more for the House to answer for. All in all, I don't see a need to repeal the 17th amendment.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Just abolish the f**king Senate

Until the ratification of the 17th Amendment, the Senate was nothing more than a cesspool of corruption and stupidity.

And the 17th amendment solved that?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Just abolish the f**king Senate

Basically. The Senate was created to appease people who didn't think citizens would be intelligent enough to vote "the right people" into the House. Until the ratification of the 17th Amendment, the Senate was nothing more than a cesspool of corruption and stupidity.

.....No.

The Senate was created to allow states to have equal representation. It may have prevented an earlier civil war, in fact. Of course, you are spot on about it being a cesspool of corruption.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

The Senate was created to allow states to have equal representation. It may have prevented an earlier civil war, in fact. Of course, you are spot on about it being a cesspool of corruption.

And it ended up being a gateway for the already rich and powerful to be appointed to a Congressional position.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Considering the Senate has such important exclusive prerogatives like confirming executive and judicial nominees, ratifying treaties etc., it's appropriate to let the voters elect it's members rather than freaking state legislatures.

Trouble is, the Senate was never a representative body of the states the way German Bundesrat is for example.