What better time to discuss the 17th Amendment than now with all the cries for the direct election for president because some did not like the outcome where their candidate received considerably more popular votes but still lost in the
What better time to discuss the 17th Amendment than now with all the cries for the direct election for president because some did not like the outcome where their candidate received considerably more popular votes but still lost in the Electoral College vote tally.
For the first 125 years of the federal government, Americans did not directly elect their senators just as we do not directly elect the president. It’s all about the distribution of power throughout the constituent units rather than by majority. Senators elected directly by the people, once confirmed, are no longer under the influence of those who elected them, but more apt to be controlled by special interests groups, the unions and political machines.
The 17th Amendment ratified in 1913 during the progressive era of Woodrow Wilson changed the election of senators who used to be appointed by their respective state legislatures, to a popular vote of the senators elected directly by the people. At first glance it may have seemed like a good thing, a move toward democracy. It gave the people a direct say in electing their own senators. Remember though, we are not a democracy, which is but majority rule. America is a constitutional republic. In the words of an opponent of the 17th Amendment, “democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.” The 17th Amendment aside from being a blow to states’ rights, also centralized power in the federal government, devolving away from representative model of federalism jeopardizing individual freedom and the constrain of excess law making. It’s hard to say we don’t suffer an excess of top down law making today.
Representatives elected by popular vote every two years causes them to have to answer to their constituents on a regular basis. Senators elected to six-year terms were thought to temper the populism of the House, but the state legislatures held the right, in theory anyway, to “instruct” their senators to vote for or against proposals of interest to the various states. This gave states both direct and indirect representation in the federal government.
Senators elected by the state legislatures in the old model, helped dissuade the federal government from being subject to special interests and moneyed influence. Again, in the old format, a candidate seeking election as a senator would only have to reach the members of his own state legislature, eliminating the need for massive campaign contributions and the quid pro quo so pervasive today. If the people of the states did not like what their senators were doing, they would appear before their state legislators in person and speak their mind. The state legislators in turn and with their own re-election in mind were more likely to fairly represent the people in their state. The direct election of Senators has not quelled the protest against the average American’s perceived loss of control over the political system.
As citizens of a free republic it is our duty to preserve it. If you would like to take a free online course on the U. S. Constitution go to: www.freeconstitutioncourse.com.
Mikie Kerr of Waikoloa is a constitutional enthusiast who writes a monthly opinion column for West Hawaii Today
