5 ms·
Governments have always used their power to try to further special interests. The US as a constitutional republic was designed to frustrate that tendency. Rec
by Dove 16y ago
Governments have always used their power to try to further special interests.
The US as a constitutional republic was designed to frustrate that tendency. Recent calls for the repeal of the 17th amendment (senators used to be selected by state legislatures; that amendment made it popular vote instead) are based on that argument.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/252825/repeal-seventeenth-amendment-todd-zywicki http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/252825/repeal-sevente...
Under the original arrangement, senators had strong
incentives to protect federalism. They recognized that
their reelection depended on pleasing state legislators
who preferred that power be kept close to home. Whereas
House members were considered representatives of the
people, senators were considered ambassadors of their
state governments to the federal government and, like
national ambassadors to foreign countries, were subject
to instruction by the parties they represented (although
not to recall if they refused to follow instructions).
And they tended to act accordingly, ceding to the
national government only the power necessary to perform
its enumerated functions, such as fighting wars and
building interstate infrastructure. Moreover, when the
federal government expanded to address a crisis (such as
war), it quickly retreated to its intended modest level
after the crisis had passed. Today, as historian Robert
Higgs has observed, federal expansion creates a “ratchet
effect.”
Just as important as its role in securing federalism, the
Senate as originally conceived was essential to the
system of separation of powers. Bicameralism — the
division of the legislature into two houses elected by
different constituencies — was designed to frustrate
special-interest factions. Madison noted in Federalist 62
that basing the House and Senate on different constituent
foundations would provide an “additional impediment . . .
against improper acts of legislation” by requiring the
concurrence of a majority of the people with a majority
of the state governments before a law could enacted. By
resting both houses of Congress on the same constituency
base — the people — the Seventeenth Amendment
substantially watered down bicameralism as a check on
interest-group rent-seeking, laying the foundation for
the modern special-interest state.
- tonystubblebine 16y agoThis is pretty interesting. Do you know what the argument was for passing the 17th amendment? What's the downside trade-off?
- Detrus 16y agoIt was passed because corporations easily bought off state legislatures and therefore the senate.
- noarchy 16y agoIn Canada, our upper house (also called the Senate), is not directly elected. The members are selected by the Prime Minister (formally the Governor General, but this is done on "advice" of the PM, meaning in practice the PM makes the call). These positions are usually filled with party cronies or other such favoured individuals. The current government, when they were the opposition, had called for Senate reforms, including direct elections. Once they got into power, they continued the status quo once they saw how beneficial it would be to them to do so. Funny how that works.
- adammichaelc 16y agoThere's no clear argument for why direct-election became so popular. There were mostly vague arguments given such as direct-election would somehow fight against the cozy relationships between industry and the Senate, or end bribery in Senatorial politics.[1] It seems that what was behind the movement to the popular vote was a strong populist sentiment without clear reason; or at least without a reason that made sense.[1] Last I checked, bribery and cozy industry relationships in the Senate were not stopped by the 17th amendment. I doubt they will ever stop. Power and money tend to mingle, and that part of human nature will probably never go away. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...
- klbarry 16y agoThere are some strong arguments that a senate operating behind closed doors would be more effective at ignoring special interests and working together than otherwise. The writers of the constitution did just this (they swore secrecy of anything they talked about in the convention to avoid voter backlash) [1] This is why they initially wanted health care debates behind closed doors - the lobbyists can make much more use of transparency than the uninterested voter can. Fareed Zakaria wrote a lot about this in The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. [A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution by Carol Berkin]
- _delirium 16y agoWhile this "repeal the 17th amendment" stuff is a pet cause among some on the right, there is very little evidence that it would have the effects its proponents claim. Here is one rebuttal: http://volokh.com/2010/06/11/would-repealing-the-seventeenth-amendment-curb-federal-power/ http://volokh.com/2010/06/11/would-repealing-the-seventeenth...
- natrius 16y agoWhen people argue for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, they're really arguing for doing away with the direct election of senators. The only solid arguments in that article assert that the former wouldn't lead to the latter, which is beside the point. Also, this is more about federalism than conservatism or libertarianism. There's a strong progressive case for allowing states to be "laboratories of democracy".