The way things are supposed to be: The Senate

“We have the worst form of government, except for every other form of government”

It has been my observation the general public, as well as those in government, are woefully and often willfully ignorant about our mode of government. Not only is there a lack of understanding about its functioning and officers today, but a near complete lack of understanding about its origins and changes over time. I’ve met some people who honestly think the Soviet system to be superior to our own! Unsurprisingly, no of those persons ever lived under it and have failed to take note that Russia (the originator) no longer uses this system (by virtue of revolt). It does appear, to the casual observer, that there is an effort to return to the ‘good old days’ by some persons with in that country’s leadership. That, however, is a discussion for another day.

I just finished reading the Federalist Papers recently. I had started them years ago, but stopped mid way through the judiciary and moved on to other things. I had misplaced my copy of The Histories and decided to finish the few papers I had left. That collection of essays is a major part of my political beliefs. The Constitution, as it was originally written, took into account the history, predispositions, and character of man. It is also mostly dependent upon the attentiveness of THE PEOPLE. The framers also added protections against mob rule and balanced the power between rural and better populated urban areas. These protections include the electoral collage and the structure of our legislature – Congress. Congress, with two distinct branches designed to counter balance one another and provide proper representation for the country as a whole, is a foil against mob rule. This is our bicameral legislature’s raison d'être.

This brings me to the main thesis of this post: We should repeal the 17^th Amendment.

FindLaw also has an excellent write-up on this Amendment and its history - so I will not waste time writing a condensed history here.

The House is intended to represent the people. This is why there are so many congresscritters representing relatively small numbers of constituents. The intent was that no one person could feel that their vote doesn’t count in such a small pool and that each congressman would have to pay more attention to the needs of the community they represented. It is also why they are burdened with such short terms. The short lived memory and gullibility of the masses is less of a factor for a congressional election.

The Senate was intended to represent THE STATES and not the people directly. The direct election of senators has made them glorified congressman with a greater concentration of power and fewer real mechanisms for accountability. The most obviously the protection provided by the six year term. This was not an issue as originally devised since (presumably) there would be a formal report of there activities in the Senate before those who would re-appoint and confirm them. The simple fact of the mater is that few people have a 6 year attention span. It was believed that by having the senators appointed by the states, to six year terms, that they would be insulated from mob rule and be freer to discharge the responsibilities of the Senate. It is representation by Electoral College by proxy and in the reverse as the basis of the Senate’s impeachment power. Additionally, this was expected to make a more politically stable body better suited to exercise the power of reviewing and approving treaties made by the President.

Above is the thrust of my argument for consideration. I could go on and really should add some citations and quotes, but it is late and I'm tired. An essay on the Electoral Collage might be next since, IMO, most people have no idea why it was conceived and thus might not get the EC reference above.