Introduction
In 1788, the United States of America adopted its first constitution, which has however undergone several amendments over the years. Among the many amendments made on the constitution of the United States of America is the famous 17th Amendment.
The 17th Amendment was passed in two stages, first by the Senate on June 12, 1911 and later the House passed the same amendment on May 13, 1912. In the following year on 8th April, the amendment was ratified and later put on election in 1914.
The 17th Amendment was meant to amend Article one of Section 3 of the constitution, which initially provided that the Senators be elected by state legislature (Kochan 1023). The amendment now provided that the election of the Senators be done by the people such that the people from every state are allowed to elect their own Senators instead of having them directly appointed by the state legislature.
However just like most of the other amendments and laws, the 17th Amendment faced both critics and supporters of the same. Most of the critics of this amendment claimed that it led to the loss of the State’s representation in the election of the Senators. On the other hand, those who supported the amendment claimed that it gave the persons on the ground to elect their own leaders.
This paper is therefore an exploration of the 17th Amendment to determine its impact on the government and the entire United States of America. To achieve this, the paper will discuss the expected key institutional changes and reasons as to why the direct elections have not transformed the Senate into a more majoritarian institution in the way that the House is.
The expected key institutional changes
The 17th Amendment can be said to have affected the way Senators are elected among other changes in the House by a great deal. As such, the 17th Amendment of the constitution of the United States provides an opportunity to explore the institutional effects of the House representations.
This is attributed to the way it changed the way Senators in the United States are elected by making them accountable to the state voters instead of the state legislature. This issue led to the 17th Amendment being accepted in some states, while a few of the states rejected it.
Nevertheless, despite the reception that the amendment got from different states, it had to be implemented. The implementation of the 17th Amendment brought along several key institutional changes to be discussed in this section.
Just as most critics of the 17th Amendment argue, it is agreeable that it led to the loss of the representativeness of the legislature in the states given the fact that they were robbed off the authority to elect the Senators and instead given to the state voters (Kochan 1023).
This had several impacts among them, the fact that the senators not being accountable to the legislature hence in some cases not obeying the legislature as it was before the amendment of the constitution. This is also attributable to the fact that the state voters unlike the state legislature had limited ability to monitor the actions of the Senators once elected.
In addition to this, the 17th Amendment led to the development of special interest groups among the state members. These special groups significantly influenced the success of candidates for the USA Senator position during the elections.
Another of the key changes that came about because of the 17th Amendment is the fairness and openness that it brought in the USA Senators elections. This is because having the state voters elect the Senator ensured that the process was almost 100% fair unlike in the previous law that required the state legislature elect the Senators.
Before the 17th Amendment, the Senators had the opportunity to influence the state legislature so that they could get votes in their favor so that they could win their elections. As such, the Senator elected by the state legislature would probably be those who have large sums of money to give as bribes.
In such cases, the elected Senators would not be representative of the state the he or she is bound to lead, as the state members did not elect them. Therefore, the 17th Amendment not only brought about fairness in the election institution but it also ensured that the elected leader is representative of the state they are to rule since a majority of the state voters chooses them.
On the other hand, the implementation of direct election in accordance to the 17th Amendment would lead to cases of interminable recounts of the elections. This is because of the increased number of the people to vote for the Senator.
Compared to the number of legislatures who before the 17th Amendment elected the Senator, the number of state voters is definitely higher thus increasing the cases of fraud in the elections. At the same time, the high number of state voters comes in handy with several challenges to the electoral commission.
Such include the increase number of the preceding offers among other authorities commissioning the voting process. This completely differs with the previous elections conducted by the legislature, which took less time and used fewer resources.
The 17th Amendment also led to another key institutional change of having the entire members of the state being loyal to the rules of law. This is because the state members feel that they are part of the election and legislature since they have been given the opportunity to elect their own leader in this case, the Senator who represents them in the Senate.
As such, the members of state are loyal to their parties as well as to their elected Senators. This was not the case before the 17th Amendment as the state members felt cheated in most of the Senator elections due to the fact that the elected Senator was in most cases not of their choice. In extreme cases, the Senator did not represent the state members effectively since they (senators) were not accountable to them.
As such, this decreased the degree of loyalty from the state members to the Senators and their political parties (Mienke 449). This has however, greatly changed with the implementation of the 17th Amendment.
Finally yet importantly, is the fact that the 17th Amendment came about with more expenses on the part of the candidates who vied for the Senator position. This is because of the fact that the candidates had to plan several campaigns throughout the state that they wanted to represent in order to create awareness.
As a result, they were bound to spend huge sums of money in the campaign in order to ensure that they have influenced the state voters to vote for them.
This is different from the case of having the senators elected by the legislature, which looked at the leadership qualities of the candidates but not their influence. As such, it can be said that the 17th Amendment changed the way Senator Elections are conducted in the United States of America.
Why direct elections have not transformed the Senate
It is agreeable that the 17th Amendment of the United States constitution was aimed at reforming the relationship that existed between the Senate and the entire public. This is attributable to the fact that the authority to elect the Senate members was bestowed on the public as stipulated by the amendment. This in turn led to the direct elections of the members of the Senate.
It is however important to note that the Senate unlike the House has undergone several alterations with regard to the way it conducts its elections. This could be one of the factors leading to the lack of transformation of the Senate. Nevertheless, this is not the primary reason for the decline of the Senate.
Years later after the 17th Amendment, the direct elections have still not transformed the Senate into a more majoritarian institution as it is in the case of the House of the United States. Several reasons have contributed to this fact, some of which include the following:
For one, the direct elections have adversely affected the composition of the Senate, a fact that is directly attributable to the 17th Amendment. This is because the composition of the Senate is largely controlled by the political parties hence the partisan advantage.
For instance, in the 1914 elections, the Democrats got the advantage of gaining more seats in the Senate unlike it was before the 17th Amendment where the Republicans were more privileged to get more seats in the Senate. Additionally, the direct elections have increased the chances of having incompetent leaders joining the Senate (Mienke 449).
Before the implementation of direct elections, the legislature had been bestowed with the responsibility of electing the Senators. In this, the legislature made sure that they selected the most competent leader among the candidates. This not only ensured that the states were to be led competently but it also made sure that all the members of the Senate had all the qualities of a good leader.
This has not been the case with the implementation of the 17th Amendment since most of the Senators are elected on the basis of their influential capacity within the state members.
As a result, it can be argued that the level of competency in the Senate is lower than that of the House. This clearly explains why the Senate has not yet been transformed to a majoritarian institution just as the House despite having the direct elections.
Secondly, the senators who had been directly elected according to the 17th Amendment changed their ideological thinking unlike their counterparts who had been elected through the legislature. This is because, despite the fact that after the amendment the senators were less responsive to the preferences of the state legislature, they had gained much preference from the state voters in this case the mass electorate.
As such, the Senators elected through direct elections have proved to be less committed to their obligations especially those accorded to them by the legislature. These Senators behave in such a manner because they are not accountable to the legislature but to the state members who voted for them yet are unlikely to monitor their work in the office.
On the contrast, the representatives of the House have a different ideology from the members of the Senate since they are effective in their work given the fact that they are answerable to the legislature. This fact completely supports the fact that the Senate has not transformed to a majoritarian institution as the House is given the different ideological thinking possessed by members of each group.
Another issue that limits the Senate from transforming into a majoritarian institution is the issue of representativeness. In most of the states, the true principles of representation are not effectively applied. For instance, applying direct elections in states that are sparsely populated is mere mockery.
Despite the fact that the direct elections of the Senators mirrored the way the House and presidential elections were conducted, there still was a problem of representation. This problem of representation eventually led to behavioral changes among the Senators.
The behavioral change has been on matters such as absenteeism, retention of committee assignments and the ideology of the electoral cycle among other factors. This behavioral change among most of the senators has in turn affected the performance of the Senate making it perform poorer than the House. In that case, the House remains a majoritarian institution over the Senate.
Conclusion
From the above discussion, it can be concluded that the 17th Amendment of the United States constitution brought about significant changes in the electoral process of the US Senators. The changes that came about can be classified to have both positive and negative impacts on various aspects of the government and the entire nation.
As mentioned earlier in the paper, the critics of the 17th Amendment claimed that having the state members elect their Senator was one way of undermining the federal government or rather the legislature (Mienke 445). On the same, some argued that the 17th Amendment would bring about cases of fraud during elections thus demanding electoral recounts given the increased number of voters.
On the other hand, the supporters of the amendment argued that having the Senators elected by the people was a good choice as he or she would be representative of the majority of the state members. Regardless of the opinion taken concerning the 17th Amendment, it is undoubtable that it led to key institutional changes expected after its implementation.
Among them was the increase in loyalty for the political parties and the more input required by the candidates for the Senator position just to mention a few. Nevertheless, even after being allowed to carry out direct elections, the Senate has not yet become a majoritarian institution as the House is. This is attributable to several factors discussed above such as the behavioral changes among others.
Therefore, in order for the Senate to transform and become a majoritarian institution like the House of Representatives it is important that several reforms be made on the same law so as to ensure that those elected for the position of the Senator are competent persons who are ready to obey the legislature despite not being directly accountable to them.
This way, the Senate will have mirrored the image of the House of Representatives thus becoming a majoritarian institution.
Works Cited
Kochan, Donald. “State Laws and the Independent Judiciary: An Analysis of the Effects of the Seventeenth Amendment on the Number of Supreme Court Cases Holding State Laws Unconstitutional”. Albany Law Review. 66.1 (2003): 1023. Print.
Mienke, Scott. Institutional Change and the Electoral Connection in the Senate: Revisiting the Effects of Direct Election. 2008. Web.