There was much debate over this very issue in the Philidelphia Convention of 1787. After much debate, It was decided that in order to properly balance the power of the federal government and give equal representation to small and large states, That the House would be the representatives of the people, And the Senate would represent the States ensuring their sovereignty. The States wanted to keep as much of their sovereignty as possible to ensure they would not get trampled by the new stronger federal government. Therefore, This issue was already solved. The 'Popularist leaders' in 1913, Are the ones who installed the income tax as prohibited by the Constitution, Created a private bank to govern the money system (also prohibited by the Constitution), And turned our Republic into a Democracy (tyranny by the majority) with the 17th Amendment. This move was designed to erode our Republic.
It would return power back to the states and reduce the power of the federal government which does too many things too ineptly. Also, reducing the size and scope of the federal government could reduce it's spending and hence the unsupportable debt. Such change is needed now more than ever.
Even if repeal is ultimately unsuccessful, it is useful to know where our senators stand on the issue - with the inspired wisdom of our founders or with their own security and self-interests. When asked, career politicians obfuscate their inner beliefs for political expediency; but, I will ask them nevertheless.
The intent of the founders in establishing a Senate the members of which were appointed by the States was to ensure that the States had power and to act as a counterweight to the potential tyranny of the majority. Popularly elected Senators weaken the States and do not protect against the tyranny of the majority.
We need to return to the original balance of power in the Congress. The states are being run roughshod by the federal government. They would not be if they still controlled the Senate, as they were intended to.
The founders warned about an "excess of democracy." We ignored that warning and let the people elect their Senators -- except that the people no longer really do; Senators who receive the greatest amount of corporate contributions to their war chests are normally the ones getting re-elected. Put them back to direct appointment by the legislature and get corporate money out of the elections.
State legislature could and did monitor their US Senators. He was never intended to be his own man. His votes were negotiated in critical legislation and this limited his power to cater to special interests. National issues were also local issues because of the legislatures' control. Now national issues are localized in DC instead of in DC (the house) and jointly in DC and the State Capitols (the pre 1914 the Senate).
The point of the Senate, before this amendment, was to represent the states, not the people. The House of Representatives was representative of the people. The states, rather than the people, should choose the states' representatives. This country is a federation of 50 sovereign states. These independent states should each be treated as an individual sovereignty in the Senate which should represent them. Additionally, if you say that the 17th Amendment makes the US "more democratic", you are wrong. Wyoming, at the time of this post, has 584,153 people, two senators, and one representative. California has 38.8 million people, two senators, and 53 representatives. With senators elected by the states, each of these two has 1 vote in Congress per state. Wyoming has 1 vote per 584,153 people, and California has 1 vote per 732,075 people. This is roughly equal. However, with direct election of senators, Wyoming has 1 vote in Congress per 194,718 people, while California has only 1 per 705,455 people. This is not even close to equal! With the 17th Amendment, two Wyoming individuals have more say in Congress than seven Californians! How is this "more democratic"? All this amendment does is give people in small states more say than others in larger states while destroying the idea of the United States. The 17th Amendment to the US Constitution MUST BE REPEALED.
The 17th amendment turned a republic into a democracy, effectively tearing away any semblance of reasonable laws in this country. It is why we have such a large national deficit. Consider this: The very people whose corruption this amendment was meant to address were the people who put the amendment into effect. Senator's have been getting away with murder because the public has a short memory, but the state never forgets. Furthermore, to say you don't want your state to elect your senators is to say you trust YOUR judgement of a person you BARELY KNOW over the judgement of an entity who has the candidate's whole track record in mind, and is probably way more familiar with the type of relationship the state requires from the federal government. At the very least, it needs A LOT more work.
The 17th amendment seemed like a good idea during the time it was passed due to the larger scale presence of corruption in the country, but it would be a good move. The people are too fickle to elect the position, and it would throw more light onto the state legislatures.
Yes, the United States should repeal the 17th Amendment, because there are too many suitcase senators. These senators, like Hillary Clinton, are not really from the places that they represent. They move to somewhere they think they can get elected and they try to win on name recognition. Senators chosen by the legislatures would do a better job representing state interests.
I like turtles, therefore, no, it shouldn't be repealed. Sometimes I feel like I get attacked by everyone because I like turtles, so therefore, they attack me because I think the 17th amendment should not be appealed. What do you guys think? Don't fight guys, we all matter in this world.
I'm against anything that strip away power from the people, and give it to the gov (even the state gov). Also, state legislatures are much easier to bribe then the american people. Prior to the passing of the seventeenth amendment, there were 9 recorded instances when a candidate literally bribed the state legislatures to appoint him to the senate. The seventeenth amendment is a common sense document that promotes the will of the people.
First off, I do not believe that our government is necessary for a safe and productive people. Therefore, I do not really care whether this is a thing or not in the first place. If I did care, however, I would say that this amendment should stay, as it ensures there will always be 100 people in the senate.
The 17th Amendment helped establish a more democratic state in the United States. Prior to the 17th Amendment, United States Senators were elected based solely on the votes of each state's legislature. If the 17th Amendment is ever eliminated, then average citizens would lose their right to vote on a candidate that they believe will best represent their interests. It would become much easier than it already is for wealthy interests to corrupt the election process in the United States. Wealthy interests would simply need to buy off a few select individuals within state legislatures to get their desired results. Therefore, maintaining the 17th Amendment is essential to preserving a more democratic state and avoiding a more overt plutocracy.
The 17th Amendment should not be repealed as it makes certain that the people of a state can elect their U.S. Senators without interference from state politicians. The same problems that led to the passing of the 17th Amendment still exist, the possibility of corruption and party politics interfering with the selection. A U.S. Senator is a very important representative of the people and they should always have the opportunity to directly elect each individual Senator.