Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-04T23:53:11.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Not-so-distant Mirror: The 17th Amendment and Congressional Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Sara Brandes Crook  and
John R. Hibbing
Sara Brandes Crook
Affiliation:
Peru State College
John R. Hibbing
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

At the beginning of the century, the Constitution was amended to permit direct election of U.S. senators. We examine the shift to determine the extent to which an electoral reform can result in meaningful change. Variables are analyzed that tap the Senate's membership and responsiveness before and after direct election, and House data are employed to control for history effects. The results indicate that changing the mode of senatorial selection did indeed lead to alterations in the composition and sensitivity of the Senate, a finding that should encourage caution regarding the electoral reforms being advocated at the end of the century.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 91 , Issue 4 , December 1997 , pp. 845 - 853
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agar, Herbert. 1950. The Price of Union. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Alford, John R., and Hibbing, John R.. 1989. “Electoral Sensitivity in the United States Congress.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Salt Lake City, UT, 03–04.Google Scholar
Bickel, Alexander M. 1968. The Age of Political Reform. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Biographical Directory of the American Congress, 1789–1989, Bicentennial Edition. 1989. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Byrd, Robert C. 1988. The Senate 1789–1987: Addresses on the History of the United States Senate. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Congressional Record. Various editions. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Crook, Sara Brandes. 1992. “The Consequences of the Seventeenth Amendment: The Twentieth Century Senate.” Ph.D. diss., University of Nebraska.Google Scholar
Daynes, Byron W. 1971. “The Impact of the Direct Election of Senators on the Political System.” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Ehrenhalt, Alan. 1986. “The Senate: World's Least Effective Saucer.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 44(8 03):583.Google Scholar
Ellis, Susan, and King, Ronald F.. 1996. “Rules and Results: The Impact of the 17th Amendment on the Composition of the U.S. Senate.” University of Michigan. Typescript.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. 1982. The United States Senate: A Bicameral Perspective. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Financial Red Book of America. 1903. New York: Financial Directory Association.Google Scholar
Grimes, Alan P. 1978. Democracy and the Amendments to the Constitution. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Gujarati, Damodar N. 1995. Basic Econometrics, 3d ed. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Haynes, George H. 1906. The Election of Senators. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Haynes, George H. [1960] 1938. The Senate of the United States. New York: Russell and Russell.Google Scholar
Hoebeke, C. H. 1995. The Road to Mass Democracy: Original Intent and the Seventeenth Amendment. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
King, Ronald F., and Ellis, Susan. 1996. “Partisan Advantage and Constitutional Change: The Case of the 17th Amendment.” Studies in American Political Development 10(Spring):69–102.Google Scholar
Lowry, E. G. 1911. “Senators by Direct Vote.” Harper's Weekly (18 02):10.Google Scholar
Madison, James. [1840] 1987. Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Mitchell, John H. 1896. “Election of Senators by Popular Vote.” Forum 21:(03–08):392–8.Google Scholar
Perrin, J. W. 1910. “Popular Election of United States Senators.” North American Review 192(12):799–804.Google Scholar
Phillips, David Graham. 1906. “The Treason of the Senate.” Cosmopolitan, 02–04, various issues and pages.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna F. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. 1955. “The Senate and American Federalism.” American Political Science Review 49(06):452–69.Google Scholar
Rothman, David J. 1966. Politics and Power: The U.S. Senate, 1869–1901. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, Charles III. 1992. “Responsiveness in the Upper Chamber: The Constitution and the Institutional Development of the Senate.” In The Constitution and American Political Development, ed. Nardulli, Peter, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Swift, Elaine K. 1996. The Making of an American Senate. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Woodrow. 1885. Congressional Government. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
World Almanac. 1902. New York: World Almanac Press.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.