< Repeal the 17th Amendment >
I propose that the following # policy proposals, about {brief overview statement}, get merged:
1 - Repeal 17th Amendment bring back state sovereignty
Written by @Octapop
{Repeal 17th Amendment bring back state sovereignty}
2 - Repeal/Replace the 17th Amendment -
Written by @RStone56
{Repeal/Replace the 17th Amendment -}
#3 - Repeal the 17th amendment
Written by @Adam_Pelletier
{Repeal the 17th amendment}
#4 - Repeal of the 17th Amendment
Written by @CEHuff
{Repeal of the 17th Amendment}
#5 - Repeal the 17th Amendment; Allow states to choose Senators as originally written
Written by @andrewcalverase
{Repeal the 17th Amendment; Allow states to choose Senators as originally written}
#6 - Repeal 17th Amendment
Written by @PaulP
{Repeal 17th Amendment}
#7 - Repeal the 17th
Written by @Joe53
{Repeal the 17th}
#8 - Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments to end lobbying
Written by @Woodsjaden63
{Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments to end lobbying}
Explanation & Justification
*{All but the last deal with exactly the same issue. The last one deals with the same issue plus a second issue, but since these policies are probably best dealing with only 1 issue at a time, I think merging it could still be beneficial.
I believe @Octapop has the best detailed description of them all, but feel there are elements that could be merged from each.
@Adam_Pelletier has the most votes of them all, so not sure if that matters on choosing the parent.
I threw all of the descriptions into ChatGPT and asked it to do 1 paragraph per topic/reason to appeal the 17th Amendment:
Return to Federalism and Strengthen State Power: The 17th Amendment shifted the election of senators from state legislatures to the popular vote, which weakened state power within the federal structure. Advocates for repeal argue that returning this power to state legislatures would restore the balance between state and federal government, empowering local communities and reinforcing federalism. Such a shift would help ensure that senators represent state interests, rather than being swayed by national party agendas or large donors, which often overlook smaller communities in favor of metropolitan voting blocs.
Restoring Checks and Balances Against Federal Overreach: Originally, the Senate served as a critical check on federal overreach, with senators acting as ambassadors of their state governments. Repealing the 17th Amendment would allow states to reclaim this oversight role, ensuring that federal actions remain within the scope initially intended by the Constitution. State-appointed senators would scrutinize federal spending and legislation more critically, preventing federal encroachment into areas better managed by states. This realignment would restore a safeguard against centralized power and refocus federal responsibilities on broader issues like national defense and international commerce.
Safeguarding the Great Compromise and Original Intent: The framers of the Constitution established a bicameral Congress to balance state and popular interests, creating a Senate that represented state governments and a House that represented the people. By repealing the 17th Amendment, we can return to this original structure and ensure that states have a distinct voice in federal decisions. This model allowed state governments, not national parties or political trends, to influence federal policy, providing an effective balance of power that has since been eroded. Without repeal, the Senate risks becoming redundant, as both chambers now represent the people directly, leaving states without an official voice in Congress.
Countering Populist Influence and Reigning in Corruption: Supporters of repeal argue that direct elections have led senators to cater to national trends and special interests rather than the long-term needs of their state. The original process of state legislative selection encouraged thoughtful deliberation and reduced the influence of popular whims and partisan pressures on senators. Repealing the 17th Amendment would make senators more accountable to their states rather than to federal campaign donors, ensuring decisions serve local interests over personal or party gain.
Reviving Civic Engagement and Accountability in Local Politics: The 17th Amendment has inadvertently concentrated power in large urban areas, diminishing the influence of rural communities and encouraging senators to focus on national issues. Repeal would motivate citizens to engage more in state politics, knowing their state representatives would select senators aligned with local priorities. It would also require people to pay closer attention to their state and local representatives, reinvigorating civic involvement at a community level. Such a change would bring power back to the states, restoring the checks and balances the Founding Fathers envisioned and aligning senators more closely with their state’s needs.
Reducing Donor Influence in Senate Elections: Repealing the 17th Amendment would significantly reduce the influx of donor money into Senate campaigns by removing the need for statewide, popular elections. With senators chosen by state legislatures rather than through costly public campaigns, the process would become less susceptible to the influence of large donors and national special interest groups. State legislators, who are closer to their constituents, would select senators based on local concerns rather than the priorities of influential outside funders. This change would help restore a level of integrity to the Senate, focusing decisions on state priorities over donor-driven agendas.}*
