I’m working on a Political Science question and need guidance to help me study.
The 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913, making the Senate directly elected by the people of each state. Consider how this changed the incentives of Senators — do you think this change had positive or negative implications for the Senate? Why?
I think that this change had both positive and negative implications for the Senate but I think the benefit can off weight the negative effect. First, I think this ratification created a concrete base to let the Senet to reach the people. This is one of the very important aspects. If the Senate is not elected by the people of each state, these members may not have the incentive to reach out to the people they represent and thus not understand their interests and need. Only when they are directly elected by the people, they will feel the pressure to actually represent them and do what they want. Though they may concern a lot about how to get reelected, they still have to satisfy their people. The most negative aspect is probably that they will try to be free-riders but that situation exists no matter how the Senate is formed. Therefore, I think the 17th Amendment brings positive implications.