If the election is that momentous, the government is too powerful. Jeffrey Tucker
laments the early 20th-century triumph of Progressivism that put the choice of U.S. Senators in the hands of voters rather than state legislators:
. . . In 1913, the 17th amendment of the US Constitution was ratified. The stated intention was to eliminate perceived corruption and legislative deadlocks.
Sure enough, it did end some deadlocks, enabling an expansion of government power that would not have otherwise been possible. It also fundamentally changed the structure and political dynamic of Congress itself. The devolved structure of American government was upended and political rights of the states declined. The Senate became another version of the House, directly elected and thereby subject to the same demagoguery, factionalism, and demographic recrimination that characterized elections for the House.
There is just a streak of well-meaning, Progressive amendments from the early 20th century that had bad effects. The 16th, 17th, and 18th all passed right together. If it weren't for the 16th, we wouldn't have a giant Federal state with the tax power to do whatever people feel like using the Federal government to do instead of what the Constitution limits the Federal government to doing. The 17th you discuss here. The 18th, Prohibition, was an effort at forcing ordinary Americans to abandon the power to make personal decisions about how to live their lives (and deeply-valued social customs, particularly among Irish/Italian/German immigrants). It's already been repealed, and is largely unlamented.
ReplyDeleteI've never heard a good argument for how the 17th Amendment broke the system.
ReplyDeleteThe states are absolutely represented, it's just that the people of the states pick senators instead of the governments of the states. So, the governments of the states are no longer represented, but so what?
And why would I want my state legislators picking my senators? That just means they pick their cronies; it just means that senators are part of the good old boy network and that to get in you have to have gone to the right schools, met the right people, made the right political donations, etc. Why would I want that kind of cronyism re-introduced?
I think there's a much stronger argument that the 16th broke the system.
However, the biggest flaw in the system is the Supreme Court, not these amendments. If the USSC did its job and limited the federal government to its enumerated powers, we wouldn't have these problems, 17th Amendment or no.
Now, there may be an argument that direct election of senators changed the Supreme Court, but I've never heard that argument made.
Anyway, I just can't get excited about the 17th. The big problem is the Supreme Court, and unless that's dealt with effectively, repealing the 17th will have little effect that I can see.
Tucker also says that "The left is getting nuttier, the hard right is getting scarier ..."
ReplyDeleteReally? It's a big chunk of the left that is getting scarier to me. Occupy, BLM, Antifa, the attempts to shut down free speech, belief that "hate speech" (i.e., normal conservative opinions) should be outlawed, the attempted assassination of Republican representatives, etc. Also, we have seen left-wing corruption of the IRS and very possibly the FBI.
The left is getting dangerous. If Tucker doesn't see that, I question his grasp on reality.
I am no student of government, but as I understand it,
ReplyDeletethe reason the 17th is bad, is because it concentrates power to the most densely populated areas. When the legislature elects a senator, the votes to do so are representative of all the areas of state. When the Senator is elected by popular vote, the cities call all the shots.
In state level gov, we see this with the total domination of states by the cities- Seattle, Portland, Denver, are examples. This was the direct result of the change in law to give minorities "equal" voting power, by assigning representation by population rather than by area.
Here's Zell Miller on the subject from 13 years ago.
ReplyDeleteThis was the direct result of the change in law to give minorities "equal" voting power, by assigning representation by population rather than by area.
ReplyDeleteNot at all. The Constitution already mandates representation, in the House, by population. From Art I, Sec 2: The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.... What things like the CRA and the more punitive Progressive-Democrat bills did, via identity politics soft bigotry, was to give their favored groups outsized representation by mandating districting be gerrymandered to emphasize those groups' votes. Assigning representation by area would give the urban areas even more power, regardless of any concentration of favored groups of Americans.
Actually hewing to the Constitution's mandate of population-based representation, even with that 30,000 limit ignored, would go a long way toward redressing many imbalances; although it wouldn't reduce the relative power of urban areas. That, though, is a function of all population-based forms of representation. And it hinges on the definition of "population:" the view that all Americans look alike in the voting booth, or the view that some Americans are so inferior and unable to compete that they need to be protected by special considerations.
Since our votes are individual matters, though, and not group ones, I see no way to balance the urban and rural votes without diminishing the value of one individual's vote while enhancing the value of another's--exactly the sewage of identity-based gerrymandering.
Eric Hines
"So, the governments of the states are no longer represented, but so what?"
ReplyDeleteWell, that's the crux of the issue, no- do we want more power at the federal or state level?
"And why would I want my state legislators picking my senators? That just means they pick their cronies"
Well, they are elected and so, at least theoretically, have to answer to the voters if they make corrupt or bad choices. It also means that the Senators go to Washington as 'servants' to the desires of the state legislature (hopefully not the legislators!), and that would have the effect of Senators being more likely to vote in ways favorable to keeping power at the state level, rather than the federal level. Having power at the federal level, and only 100 senators makes each senator unduly powerful (as we're seeing with the usual R 'dissenters'. They enjoy the power they wield).
The link Grim gave with Zell Miller's comments is quite good on the subject in it's content and it's brevity.
ReplyDeletethey are elected and so, at least theoretically, have to answer to the voters if they make corrupt or bad choices.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but in the meantime, the corrupt choices are still in the Senate. Elected by the State's citizens as a body eliminates that middleman and removes any excuses for the failure of the choices. And the citizens still have the vote on the legislators who made other good or bad choices.
Senators go to Washington as 'servants' to the desires of the state legislature (hopefully not the legislators!)
Assuming the legislature makes a choice at all, the chosen most assuredly will be servants of particular legislators--the ones the chosen pet Senator paid for the vote.
Eric Hines
I confess my views on populism are completely confused. When populists hand elitist bullies their heads, I'm all for them. When they prove themselves a lot of bumbling idiots and oppress minorities including people who have sensible views like my own, they irritate me. Tyranny of the elite, tyranny of the majority, we're always trying to find ways to keep tyranny at bay. None of work well or all the time.
ReplyDelete"When the legislature elects a senator, the votes to do so are representative of all the areas of state. When the Senator is elected by popular vote, the cities call all the shots."
ReplyDeleteWell, to some extent that may be true, although due to proportional representation the cities simply have more representation in the state legislatures as well. It is a point in favor of repealing the 17th, though.
The argument I was looking for is in the article Grim linked:
The 17th amendment was ratified in 1913. It is no coincidence that the sharp rise in the size and power of the federal government starts in this year (the 16th amendment, establishing a federal income tax, ratified the same year, was also important). As George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki has noted, prior to the 17th amendment, senators resisted delegating power to Washington in order to keep it at the state and local level. “As a result, the long term size of the federal government remained fairly stable during the pre-Seventeenth Amendment era,” he wrote.
Prof. Zywicki also finds little evidence of corruption in the Senate that can be traced to the pre-1913 electoral system. By contrast, there is much evidence that the post-1913 system has been deeply corruptive. As Sen. Miller put it, “Direct elections of Senators … allowed Washington’s special interests to call the shots, whether it is filling judicial vacancies, passing laws, or issuing regulations.”
That's worth considering. Apparently there is a book on this topic:
Federalism, the Supreme Court, and the Seventeenth Amendment: The Irony of Constitutional Democracy by Ralph A. Rossum.
Maybe repealing the 17th is part of the solution. Of course, that rise in federal power also came with the 16th Amendment, and it exploded 30-40 years after the 17th with the FDR administration and the 9 justices he got to pick, so it would only be part of what needs doing.
All of these arguments so far ignore a few things.
ReplyDelete1) Direct election of Senators was already a thing for several states before the 17th amendment, and mostly Western states at that. (Also several of them were dry already too).
2) The rise in Federal power was a absolutely a consequence of the USA's involvement in both WWI, and WWII. The country has never shook that, and won't at this point.
It's true that several states chose to have direct elections before the 17th, but they weren't required to do so. If the state governments wanted to change that, they could have more easily than changing a Constitutional amendment.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the Great Depression was a major cause of the rise in Federal power. Desperate people were happy to give FDR more and more power, as long as he promised to end the depression.
FDR does represent a massive, major shift. But he couldn't have done what he did without the income tax; it's worth looking at the fundamentals, too.
ReplyDeleteSure. You're right. But the USSC breaking the Commerce Clause was also fundamental. FDR couldn't have done it without that either.
ReplyDeleteSince I tend to think of the Depression and New Deal (and fights over the New Deal in the USSC) as the immediate cause of the changes, I'm curious about the influence of WW I and II. How were they part of this?