The Twilight of Indirect, Senatorial Elections

Abstract

Prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment, senators were selected by state legislators, a measure designed to remove them from fluctuations of popular whim. By 1913, reformers, having assailed members of the Senate as insular to the changing needs of their constituents, pressed for fundamental, structural reform, including direct popular elections. But few works have assessed the nature of senatorial campaigns under the indirect regime. I research contemporaneous newspaper coverage and personal correspondences of individual senators to better glean their levels of sensitivity to re-election pressures — a significant qualitative contribution to the discourse. And I measure the extent to which a state’s political conditions influenced the tendency for senators to engage in public appeals for popular support. Senatorial elections were already pseudo-democratic before 1913, experiencing an emergent element of popular legitimacy as public sentiment meaningfully informed the process and conduits for public accountability were expanding. In stark contrast to prevailing perceptions, senators were keenly sensitive to electoral pressures. By cultivating popular support, they regularly tried to bolster their positions vis-a-vis powerful party leaders, state legislators, and pivotal decision-makers. But the strategy was risky as well, for a poor showing in the November elections invited intra-party challenges. Ultimately, my dissertation tells a story of how parties adapted to changing conditions to remain politically viable and survive in a new age, granting concessions to the electorate which were designed to promote greater popular participation whilst maintaining overall control over the process. The crusade for reforming the senatorial selection method was conducted on behalf of reformers who sought to redress perceived inequalities and dysfunction in the system. Debates over the balance between democratic self-government and the importance of whom Jonathan Rauch term “the middlemen” continue to percolate, colorizing the dispute within the Democratic Party over the role of superdelegates and efforts to abolish the Electoral College. And my research explores the intersection of democratic reforms and racialized politics with the adoption of the invidious “white primary” in South Carolina and the factors which gave rise to the race-baiting, populist demagogue Benjamin Tillman — the precursor to modern-day populists and illiberal democracies.