100 years of Amendment XVII

[solarstorm]

As most of you certainly already now: The upcoming midterm elections mark
100 years of direct elections of U.S. Senators.

Are this year's midterm elections the most exciting ones ever?
I mean there are so many states where I don't have any clue who will become governor/senator. When did it happen the last time that even experts like us can't predict so many races, despite today's outstanding development of demoscopic methods?

[Badger]

And the most depressing thing? It's actually a fashionable thing in some non-extremist conservative circles to lionize repealing the 17th Amendment.

[Miles]

An overlooked political story lines of this year, IMO: the MT/LA/KS seats up this year have always elected a Senator from the same party since the enactment of the 17th Amendment. All three could well flip this year.

[Free Bird]

17 is really redundant if you ask me

[solarstorm]

17 is really redundant if you ask me

I ask you: Why?

[Free Bird]

17 is really redundant if you ask me

I ask you: Why?

The representatives are meant to directly represent the people. The senate was meant to represent the LEGISLATURE of that state, at least in my interpretation. Having the senate now also represent the people's will is redundant. It's basically a unicameral congress in that regard if they're not different

[Bacon King]

17 is really redundant if you ask me

I ask you: Why?

The representatives are meant to directly represent the people. The senate was meant to represent the LEGISLATURE of that state, at least in my interpretation. Having the senate now also represent the people's will is redundant. It's basically a unicameral congress in that regard if they're not different

You make an excellent case for abolishing the Senate

[Free Bird]

17 is really redundant if you ask me

I ask you: Why?

The representatives are meant to directly represent the people. The senate was meant to represent the LEGISLATURE of that state, at least in my interpretation. Having the senate now also represent the people's will is redundant. It's basically a unicameral congress in that regard if they're not different

You make an excellent case for abolishing the Senate

More like abolishing the 17th

[solarstorm]

How long had a senator's tenure been before Amendment XII taking effect?
Also six years? Or as long as the state's legislature?

[Maxwell]

17 is really redundant if you ask me

I ask you: Why?

The representatives are meant to directly represent the people. The senate was meant to represent the LEGISLATURE of that state, at least in my interpretation. Having the senate now also represent the people's will is redundant. It's basically a unicameral congress in that regard if they're not different

You make an excellent case for abolishing the Senate

More like abolishing the 17th

Abolishing the 17th is awful. It would make the Senate even more corrupt than it already is. I don't think you thought this through.

[Badger]

I don't think you thought this through.

Max, meet Freedomhawk.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

How long had a senator's tenure been before Amendment XII taking effect?
Also six years? Or as long as the state's legislature?

It's always been six years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Senate

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Interestingly, the sending of the 17th Amendment to the States by Congress was done to forestall the possibility of a Second Constitutional Convention.  Thirty-four states had called for a convention to propose this amendment, only two short of the number needed then.  It would have been interesting to see what might have happened had there been a convention then.