Why Repealing the 17th Amendment Won't Curb Federal Power

Many Conservatives seem to be calling for a repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  They claim that, by taking the vote for Senators away from the people and giving it back to the state legislatures, it will return to the States a voice in Washington they no longer have.

I disagree.

The assumption made by critics of the Seventeenth Amendment is that Senators would be more likely to protect States' Rights if they were appointed by legislatures rather than voters.  Gene Healy even said that the Seventeenth Amendment "has done untold damage to federalism and limited government."  What these critics fail to recognize is the history behind the Seventeenth Amendment.

By 1908, 28 states held popular elections by law for the Senators that were sent to Congress.  Nine additional states required that the legislature take into account the popular vote when appointing Senators.  That was 37 out of 46 states!  That means that only nine state legislatures still appointed Senators without a popular vote.  So, obviously, the States had already decided that a popular vote was a better means to equal representation in Congress.

So what if we did repeal the Seventeenth Amendment?  What would ultimately change?  Virtually nothing.  Given how the American People embrace democracy, we would very soon be back to where the individual states themselves were mandating the popular election of Senators.  Even if there was a way to keep the states from doing just that, there would not be a reduction in federal spending like what the critics of the Seventeenth Amendment are pushing for.

Pushing for repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment is a useless battle.  If you want federal spending reduced, there are much, much more efficient ways that your resources can be directed toward.