What’s Wrong and How to Fix It, Part 8: Repeal the 17th Amendment
Published on: February 4, 2013
show comments
  • Oh, come off it. All that would happen would be that the Super PACs would pump all their money into state legislative races, and it would soon take $100 million to get elected State Representative. Besides, we have long, sorrowful evidence that state legislatures are no more immune to corruption than Congress (e.g. Louisiana in the Huey Long era, Springfield, Illinois from the Richard Daley père era to the present…)

  • Adam Garfinkle

    I won’t come off it. You need to come on to a genuine understanding of subsidiarity. Corruption is less likely when political decisions are closest to the people they effect. We need to bring decisions closer to the people, and that way we can have “blue” solutions for whose who want and need them, and “red” ones for those who want and need them at the same time. Our Federal system is deeply unbalanced, which helps cause the unhinged budgetary problems we have. This is not a cure-all, or I would have listed it first, now wouldn’t I have. It is a cure-some.

  • Nathan

    I agree with Adam on this one. We already have more than enough politicians that have to spend their time grovelling in front of constituents. As backwards as it sounds, freeing some politicians from immediate censure probably isn’t a bad idea.

    More to the point, however, the meaning of a Senator in the US situation has been lost over time. Senators didn’t originally represent the people of their states at all. They represented the states themselves as the semi-sovereign bodies they were meant to be.

    Of course the basic democratic principle was still preserved in the original senators in that the people could elect a new state government that would then elect a new senator. The transfer from the often-fickle will of the people to the Senate is much slower under such a model, however.

    And yeah, as far as the Huey Long, ect examples…we aren’t ever going to completely eliminate corruption in politics. I don’t see how the 17th amendment actually helps prevent corruption, however. Isn’t that beside the point?

  • Gary W

    One more thing.. the states that want to do their own thing are the very states that GET a lot of money from the feds. The states that believe in centralized functions are the ones that GIVE money to the feds. Therefore the only reason the little red states support states’ rights is STUPIDITY and BIGOTRY.

  • Mark

    Blue states are blue because of urban voters. Look at the county by county Presidential election map, and you see what I mean.
    As population concentrations go up, so does tax remittance, obviously, so of _course_ red states pay less than the more populace blue states, there are more people paying _taxes_ in blue states.

  • Brendan Doran

    Agree.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.