Ben Sasse wants to overturn the 17th Amendment, the one about direct election of Senators

[irisblue]

The op-ed at the wall street journal is behind a paywall. So if some kind DUer who can send it to me via message I'd be very grateful.

I'm curious, he doesn't want his constituents knowing what he says & will be running on in 2024?

The National Review says about Sasses OpEd
source-https://www.nationalreview.com/news/ben-sasse-calls-for-repealing-17th-amendment-eliminating-popular-vote-senate-elections/


Title-Ben Sasse Calls for Repealing 17th Amendment, Eliminating Popular-Vote Senate Elections
By BRITTANY BERNSTEIN
September 9, 2020 9:00 AM

snip-"..."Sasse called for an end to the amendment, among other changes to the Senate “aimed at promoting debate, not ending it.”

He also recommended abolishing standing committees, requiring senators to show up for debates, implementing 12-year term limits, and requiring senators to live together in dorms when in Washington."

snip-"The Nebraskan Senator also suggested ridding the Senate of cameras because in the presence of cameras, Senators “aren’t trying to learn from witnesses, uncover details, or improve legislation. They’re competing for sound bites.“

more at that source.

[TheFarseer]

1. He makes an interesting case

I’d like to see the pros and cons of this.

[themaguffin]

2. Republicans want state legislatures to appoint Senators again. that's horrific

Going back to that would be terrible as we've seen the antics of GOP controlled states.


I do think that they should all live together though.

[TheFarseer]

6. Oh yikes!

How was I not putting that together? No thanks, Ben

[irisblue]

9. Here, another source from 2003/4

Source--https://hnn.us/articles/6822.html

{And remember the "Illinois Senate Candidate" Alan Keyes who carpet bagged his ass into Illinois in 2004 was soundly beaten by a "skinny kid with a funny name"}

snip-"Why did Americans in the Progressive Era endorse this change in the nation’s fundamental law? Put aside the senatorial giants that Miller mentions--- John C. Calhoun, Daniel Webster, and Henry Clay. Consider three lesser known figures in the history of the upper house—J. Edward Addicks, William A. Clark, and William Lorimer. Few history books devote more than a line or two to these three obscure gentlemen, but they were important players in the reason why the Seventeenth Amendment came into being.

By 1900 complaints about the way that United States senators were elected filled the press of the day. “The legislative system of electing Senators has broken down,” wrote a commentator in the Arena in 1905. Critics cited the senators who had recently been indicted and convicted of crimes, Joseph R. Burton of Kansas and John Mitchell of Oregon. Other senators such as Chauncey Depew of New York had been found to be on the payroll of corporations. There was in the Senate the general presence, as the Nation put it, of “those whose corruption or surrender to corporate interests has too long stained the reputation of a great legislative body.” Politicians associated with the Progressive Movement, such as William E. Borah of Idaho and Joseph L. Bristow of Kansas, argued that direct election represented a forward step toward cleaner politics when corruptible state legislatures gave way to the people.

Now to those three obscure men. William A. Clark was a wealthy silver miner from Montana whom the legislature in that state sent to the Senate in 1899. Subsequent investigation determined that he had spent more than $140,000 of his money bribing lawmakers in the legislature. After resigning his seat in early 1900, he was returned to the Senate by the Montana legislature under less sordid conditions. J. Edward Addicks was a millionaire from Pennsylvania who tried to buy himself a Senate seat from Delaware in the 1890s and early 1900s. Spreading his cash around, he put the state into a political turmoil that left it without one of its senators for several years. Finally, Senator William Lorimer received a majority of the votes from the Illinois legislature in 1909. Later revelations disclosed that bribery of some legislators had been a key part of Lorimer’s victory. The senator himself was not involved with the illegal acts, but the specter of “Lorimerism” convinced many citizens that legislatures were not the proper vehicles for selecting United States senators. In 1912 Lorimer was expelled from the Senate. By then the direct election of senators had become a constitutional amendment and was on its way to ratification.

The Seventeenth Amendment did not bring the new political morality to the Senate that its advocates had forecast. Many problems of campaign finance, corrupted elections, and the power of special interests remain to plague the Senate chamber. But a resolution of those issues will not occur by returning to a fancied golden age of senatorial excellence before the Seventeenth Amendment came on the scene. State legislatures are not the answer to improving the Senate any more than they were in 1900. Such a reversion might have the effect of reducing campaign expenses since the cost of influencing several dozen state lawmakers would be well below the current outlay for running a statewide election. Yet it is laughable, in light of the historical experience of a century ago, to suggest that a return to a system so susceptible to corruption, log-rolling, and the flouting of public opinion would be any kind of improvement over the present state of affairs. The contemporary problems of the Senate need to be addressed. Relying on the undemocratic methods that came before the Seventeenth Amendment provides no way to embark on the salutary process of reforming the Senate."



more at source.

[TheFarseer]

16. I'll have to forward this to the Janicek campaign

Not that it will help unfortunately.

[roamer65]

13. Fuck that.

That’s a reason for secession just in principle.

[Demsrule86]

18. There are no pros...

[TheFarseer]

19. His logic is total BS

Now that I’ve thought about it. The only pro is there’s no polarizing debate because there is no debate. What the heck kind of pro is that?

[brooklynite]

3. Why do you say "he doesn't want his constituents knowing what he says"?

Because WSJ isn't making the op-ed free?

Do you imagine any of his voters care at all about this issue? I don''t.

[hlthe2b]

4. They damned well SHOULD care.

[irisblue]

5. I think he is positioning himself for a run against Cotton & maybe Kasich in 24

I have no solid idea of what his constituents feel about the issue, I do not live there. Do you with your knowledge of politics have any info on the subject? I'd appreciate your sharing with me. His op-ed seems anti small d democratic to me.

[J_William_Ryan]

7. This is a bad faith proposal by Republicans.

The GOP controls most of the state governments, and will for the foreseeable future.

As such Republicans would have a perpetual majority in the Senate.

This is just another example of Republicans trying to maintain their minority rule.

[octoberlib]

8. We already have term limits. They're up to the American people every 6 years.

[MineralMan]

10. He's wasting his time. Amendments are hella tough to enact.

He has no chance with that one, frankly.

[SWBTATTReg]

12. Sasse makes a good point, to end the cameras and sound bites. We all have had enough of the endless

posturing and such for the cameras, instead of getting down to work, and getting things done. rump with his endless tweeting and such, leaves little to the imagination that he's getting a damn thing done, other than his endless whining, ranting and raving. A truly incompetent, so called 'billionaire' (yeah, right). Worthless as usual.

[Midnight Writer]

14. A sit com set in The Senator's Dorm holds potential. Other than that, I don't thank so!

[Wounded Bear]

15. Yeah, good luck with that...

Constitutional Amendments seem like an impossible lift these days.

[Cicada]

17. Senators required to live together in dorms?

Would you want to live with Ted Cruz?

[struggle4progress]

20. "It's easier to control state legislatures! So let's cut the public out of the process!"

Direct Election of Senators

... Intimidation and bribery marked some of the states' selection of senators. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906. In addition, 45 deadlocks occurred in 20 states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating senators. In 1899 problems in electing a senator in Delaware were so acute that the state legislature did not send a senator to Washington for four years.

The impetus for reform began as early as 1826, when direct election of senators was first proposed. In the 1870s, voters sent a petition to the House of Representatives for a popular election. From 1893 to 1902, momentum increased considerably. Each year during that period, a constitutional amendment to elect senators by popular vote was proposed in Congress, but the Senate fiercely resisted change, despite the frequent vacancies and disputed election results. In the mid-1890s, the Populist Party incorporated the direct election of senators into its party platform, although neither the Democrats nor the Republicans paid much notice at the time. In the early 1900s, one state initiated changes on its own. Oregon pioneered direct election and experimented with different measures over several years until it succeeded in 1907. Soon after, Nebraska followed suit and laid the foundation for other states to adopt measures reflecting the people's will. Senators who resisted reform had difficulty ignoring the growing support for direct election of senators ...

Increasingly, senators were elected based on state referenda, similar to the means developed by Oregon. By 1912, as many as 29 states elected senators either as nominees of their party's primary or in a general election. As representatives of a direct election process, the new senators supported measures that argued for federal legislation, but in order to achieve reform, a constitutional amendment was required. In 1911 Senator Joseph Bristow of Kansas offered a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment. The idea also enjoyed strong support from Senator William Borah of Idaho, himself a product of direct election. Eight southern senators and all Republican senators from New England, New York, and Pennsylvania opposed Senator Bristow's resolution. The Senate approved the resolution largely because of the senators who had been elected by state-initiated reforms, many of whom were serving their first term and therefore may have been more willing to support direct election. After the Senate passed the amendment, which represented the culmination of decades of debate about the issue, the measure moved to the House of Representatives.

The House initially fared no better than the Senate in its early discussions of the proposed amendment. Much wrangling characterized the debates, but in the summer of 1912 the House finally passed the amendment and sent it to the states for ratification ...