Honestly, this is an issue I do not understand. I promise you, if the legislature of SC was in charge of senators, we wouldn’t have Tim Scott, but we would still have Lindsey Graham and we would never have had Jim DeMint. Repealing the 17th is not a panacea...
It’s intended to be structural. Having state governments represented is way to make states have an interest in restraining the feds.
It wouldn’t eliminate corruption. It would change its emphasis to the states and indirectly encourage people to vote with their feet, to move to less corrupt states or have face-to-face confrontations at state capitals.
The people of the United States are already represented by the House of Representatives. Why would there be a second representation of the people?
The Senate is to represent the states.
it would be a hell of a lot better than what we have now. There is zero effort in DC to restrain fed control of the states. That was the intent of the Senate.
Now that Lindsey works for a couple hundred legislators who keep very close track of his votes, what is the chance Graham will vote in any way against the interests of SC, and more importantly, against the interest of keeping his job?
Would Graham even consider consenting to sitting judges hostile to the 10th Amendment?
By the design of the Framers, it was expected that less than virtuous men would look out for their interests. By doing so, they would keep the new federal government in its constitutional box.
That may be, but the repeal of the 17th would probably mean the end of professional, life-long senators.
That would be a good thing...