How U.S. senators were chosen prior to the Seventeenth Amendment—and the consequences of Constitutional reform From 1789 to 1913, U.S. senators were not directly elected by the people—instead the Constitution mandated that they be chosen by state legislators. This radically changed in 1913, when the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, giving the public a direct vote. Electing the Senate investigates the electoral connections among constituents, state legislators, political parties, and U.S. senators during the age of indirect elections. Wendy Schiller and Charles Stewart find that even though parties controlled the partisan affiliation of the winning candidate for Senate, they had much less control over the universe of candidates who competed for votes in Senate elections and the parties did not always succeed in resolving internal conflict among their rank and file. Party politics, money, and personal ambition dominated the election process, in a system originally designed to insulate the Senate from public pressure. Electing the Senate uses an original data set of all the roll call votes cast by state legislators for U.S. senators from 1871 to 1913 and all state legislators who served during this time. Newspaper and biographical accounts uncover vivid stories of the political maneuvering, corruption, and partisanship—played out by elite political actors, from elected officials, to party machine bosses, to wealthy business owners—that dominated the indirect Senate elections process. Electing the Senate raises important questions about the effectiveness of Constitutional reforms, such as the Seventeenth Amendment, that promised to produce a more responsive and accountable government.

Before the Seventeenth Amendment, US senators were elected by state legislatures. To end the supposed corruption of state "machines" and make the Senate more responsive to the legislative needs of the industrial era, the Senate was made a popularly elected body in 1913. Meanwhile, the spread of information and communications technology, it was argued, had rendered indirect representation through state legislators unnecessary. However, C. H. Hoebeke contends, none of these reasons accorded with the original intent of the Constitution's framers. To the founders, democracy simply meant the absolute rule of the majority. They proposed instead a "mixed" Constitution, an ancient ideal under which democracy was only one element in a balanced republic. Hoebeke demonstrates that the states, which were to provide the aristocratic Senate and the monarchical president, never resisted egalitarian encroachments, and settled for popular expedients when electing both presidents and senators long before the formal cry for amendment. The Road to Mass Democracy addresses the corruption, character and conduct of senate candidates and other issues relating to the triumph of "plebiscitary government" over "representative checks and balances." This work offers a provocative, readable, and often satiric reexamination of America's attempt to solve the problems of democracy with more democracy.

This volume presents the Seventeenth Amendment in historical context, allowing readers to examine how it has been tested in the courts. Essay sources include the New York Times, David Graham Phillips, John Dean, Zell Miller, and the Constitutional Accountability Center. Readers will be intrigued by current debate and controversies about this amendment as well.

This volume presents the Seventeenth Amendment in historical context, allowing readers to examine how it has been tested in the courts. Essay sources include the New York Times, David Graham Phillips, John Dean, Zell Miller, and the Constitutional Accountability Center. Readers will be intrigued by current debate and controversies about this amendment as well.

This book demonstrates that nineteenth-century electoral politics were the product of institutions that prescribed how votes were cast and were converted into political offices.

Contents: (1) Intro.; (2) Competing Approaches: Direct Popular Election v. Electoral College Reform; (3) Direct Popular Election: Pro and Con; (4) Electoral College Reform: Pro and Con; (5) Electoral College Amendments Proposed in the 111th Congress; (6) Contemporary Activity in the States; (7) 2004: Colorado Amendment 36; (8) 2007-2008: The Presidential Reform Act (California Counts); (9) 2006-Present: National Popular Vote -- Direct Popular Election Through an Interstate Compact; Origins; The Plan; National Popular Vote, Inc.; Action in the State Legislatures; States That Have Approved NPV; National Popular Vote; (10) Prospects for Change -- An Analysis; (11) State Action -- A Viable Reform Alternative?; (12) Concluding Observations.