Since 1914, the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution changed the process of selecting members of the United States Senate from being chosen by the state legislatures to direct election by the voters. I'm wondering if any historians and/or Constitutional scholars can give me any insights into the reasons for and results of this change.

Was this a good change or a bad one?

This in part came out of the Populist revolt of farmers from the South and the West feeling disfranchised. It was the electoral reform of the day.

The Progressives of the urban middle class latched on to this idea in a move for greater voter fairness.

Before Senators were indirectly voted for by elected representatives in the state legislatures. In the late 19th century or the Gilded Age, it became a common belief that the Senate was a millionaires club that was dominated by the new business conglomerates or trusts. That these interests had enough money to subvert the will of the electorate and put in candidates that would protect their interests before those of the common people.

The reform was a good idea in my mind, but it has not eliminated the need for further campaign reform. We still have a problem with special interests but at least now we can try to rally direct voter indignation if a candidate seems to be corrupt.

That's a reform I still have deep reservations about. It makes sense if you think of the USA as a country with a unified central government, but I prefer a federal system, and the selection of the Senators by the state legislatures was the main factor that ensured the Senate would stand up for the interests of the states against the central government. Voter reaction sometimes does that too of course but not nearly as consistently. What Eeyore says about it is true too, I'm just turning it over and looking at the other side, and that was one of the "checks & balances" built into the Constitution that we discarded when we passed the 17th Amendment.

All I can say is,ditto.

The original intent of the Senators was to represent the individual States' rights in the federal government. That's why the Senate has approval power over treaties and appointments.

The change really weakened States' rights and has helped you create this huge, monstrous, overpowering federal bureaucracy.

However, is this really a bad thing? Look at the CSA during the Civil War. Sure, losing Jackson was a big problem, but if their government had been stronger like our federal government was and is, they might've won the war.

Not sure how it's relevant, but I don't think the South lost the Civil War because of government.

The Secession of the South was entirely legal, while Lincoln's actions were un-Constitutional. It is all a matter of history, and we (and the world) probably came out for the better because of Lincoln's actions.

The weakening of the States has weakened America. The Senate was just one step in that long process.

Are you saying that the existence of the senate weakens the states? Au contraire.

Whoa! The thought of our two Senators from California being chosen by our state legislature instead of the voters scares the daylights out of me. Not that we have the greatest ones now with the Bobbsy twins, but the California legislature is one of the most corrupt political institutions I have ever seen. Allowing them to extend their political patronage to the US Senate would raise the political corruption in California to a whole new quantum level, and it's already an artform now.

I think it was a good thing to change because the State Legislators might want their "buddies" in the Senate because he may be an advantage but with the public voting for the person, the people get their own person who will represent them & their wants instead of just the State Government & their wants

due to a lack of central power, many of the CSA states didn't listen to Davis when he asked for troops and/or supplies as well as other things of this nature. Had there been better cooperation, the South could've very possibly won the war.

Debate topic reminder:

QUOTE

Since 1914, the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution changed the process of selecting members of the United States Senate from being chosen by the state legislatures to direct election by the voters. I'm wondering if any historians and/or Constitutional scholars can give me any insights into the reasons for and results of this change.

Was this a good change or a bad one?