The turmoil in the U.S. Senate caused by Barak Obama’s elections is a good opportunity to promote the repealing of the 17th Amendment which changed the Constitution and allowed for Senators to be directly elected by the people instead of selected by State Legislatures.

Repealing the 17th Amendment will spare us the corruption of governors auctioning off the seat to the highest bidder (llinois) with special appointments, it will spare us having non-entity “caretakers” keeping seats warm until the next election (Delaware) and dog and pony shows trying to influence a governor’s selection process (New York).

Nor would we have to endure months and millions of wasted dollars on gross television ads that assault the senses and insult our intelligence and have to deal with long vote recounts, both of which Minnesotans have had to endure lo these many months (is it any wonder some of the dirtiest elections in U.S. history have been for the Senate?). And Minnesota too was the scene of one of the most vulgar acts of raw political power back in December of 1976 when then Governor Wendell Anderson suddenly resigned and had his successor Rudy Perpich appoint him to vice-president elect Walter Mondale’s Senate seat.

There were two points behind the Founders’ original desire to have the Senate appointed by state legislatures. 1). It was a mark of Federalism to allow state’s to have a significant say in dealings of Congress; 2). It would make the Senate different from the directly elected House in the same fashion the House of Lords is different from the House of Commons and the Canadian Senate (which is also appointed) is different than the Canadian Commons as well. They wanted a body separated from passions of popular will and immune from the tyranny of the majority. That’s why they made the terms longer. Making the Senate a directly elected body may have seem the thing to do in the Progressive Era so as to increase “democracy” and provide more rule to the people. But as we’ve seen in countless examples around the world more “democracy” does not mean better government.

This is not to say that all of Senators Pre-17th were saints and that all the Senators post-17th were knaves, far from it. But I would hazard to guess that most of the Senatorial statues in the Capitol Building are pre-17th Amendment and their names more readily acknowledged throughout history like Clay, Calhoun, Webster, Randolph, Blaine, Sherman, Douglas, Toombs, Morill, Medill, Benjamin, Mallory, Benton, LaFollette (although the direct election of Senators was one of his ideas) Aldrich, Conkling and so forth.

Certainly an appointed Senate would be a different Senate, especially when their members would have more time to do their works instead of fundraising for the next election, even if it is five years out. You may very well have a Caroline Kennedy appointed to the Senate by the New York legislature but at least she wouldn’t have to do a humiliating tap dance for the seat.  I’m not saying politics wouldn’t be involved in the selection process, far from it, but given the fractiousness of legislative bodies, you might see appointments go to more non-political figures to ensure a state’s representation in the body instead of splitting along party or ideological lines. It would certainly be a less partisan Senate to a degree, which may lead to less trench warfare tactics.

There’s a good thread over at Chronicles’ website (check out its new design) lamenting the current Senate and the fact the only true orginial left is an ailing Robert Byrd.  By repealing the 17th Amendment, there’s a better chance more Byrd’s might make their way into the body than Al Frankens of the world or even the Robert Redford character in the movie “The Candidate” who says after winning (you guessed it) a U.S. Senate seat “Now what?” Stephen Douglas would have never asked that question.