The year 2013 marked the 100th anniversary of the adoption of the 17th Amendment. Let’s pausing to explore what the United States has gained from directly electing its senators.

Historians investigated the dynamics of Senate elections in the indirect system. Based on their results, they argue that the 17th Amendment produced a Senate that is less responsive to voters than under the indirect election system. They found similarities in Senate elections in the indirect age and today’s Senate in terms of the types of candidates that run, the role of money in elections, the influence of partisanship, and the nature of Senate ideological and legislative behavior.

Some of their main conclusions are the following:

• Corruption and inefficiency in indirect elections (by state legislature) were the motivation for the amendment, and the Progressive movement aimed to achieve more open, accessible, and responsive government.
• Candidates used wads of money to win indirect Senate elections, just as today’s candidates must raise huge amounts to wage a campaign.
• Polarization in the Senate was high under indirect elections and then decreased after the adoption of the 17th Amendment. Yet it reappeared in the late 1970s and is a significant factor in today’s Senate.
• Today’s senators are no more responsive to constituent needs than their counterparts elected indirectly by their state’s legislature.

Source: A Century Later: The Adoption of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on Direct Election of Senators
Copyright 2017 The Brookings Institution