I never quite understand the arguments against the 17th amendment.
Prior to that time, senators were appointed by state legislatures rather than elected by voters.
What practical difference would it make?
For example, California has two liberal hack Democrat senators, Feinstein and Barbara Boxer.
California Democrats have huge majorities in the state legislature in Sacramento. If they chose California’s senators, they could well choose Feinstein and Boxer as the senators. Since they are Democrats, they would only choose Democrats as senators. No chance for any Republican or other party candidate to make a case to the voters. Because the voters in that case would be all Democrat hack legislators.
So I’m wondering if we would see a major difference in who is elected/selected as senators, if partisan state legislatures chose senators, as opposed to voters.
The intent for the House of Representatives was to be the voice of the people. The intent for the Senate was to be the voice of the states. By changing the way Senators gained their seats, the states were left without representation and the balance of power was upset. This one change is responsible for more encroachment on the many freedoms endemic in the Constitution than any other except perhaps the income tax. We are fully reaping the results of that change now.
Hope that helps you understand the impact of changing how Senators get to Washington. Perhaps one of the experts on Freerepublic will see your post and respond with a better explanation than I am able to give.
But there are something like 56 or 57 other states out there.
I think right now Republican control something like 30 statehouses (I could look it up but that just seems like so much work). That would mean 60 Republican Senators right there.
Assuming those Legislatures had the balls to elect two Republican Senators.
Absent the 17th Amendment David Dewhurst would be the junior senator from Texas and Bob Bennett would be the junior senator from Utah. Nobody would have heard of Chris McDaniel. Pat Roberts wouldn't have had to leave suburban DC during the entire election cycle.
The Progressive era was a very destruction force toward individual liberty. The Federal Reserve, League of Nations and equally ugly UN, Great War with WWII, Income Tax, Direct election of Senators, Prohibition and Propaganda are among the Progressive legacy.
The power to tax an individual's work output is very destructive power. For over 125 years our Nation fully funded itself through tariffs upon imported goods that competed with US interests. The 16th empowered social engineering busybodies and opened the class warfare window.
After the 17th, a special interest only needs to purchase 51 Senate, in lieu of 217 House seats, to enable an agenda. Given millions of out of state (and country) dollars purchase elect Senators; rarely does a Senator's values accurately reflect home state's values. For example, Progressives defeated overwhelmingly popular conservative Matt Bevin in the Kentucky GOP primary, leaving Kentucky a toss-up for the lessor of two Progressives evils.
Cheers,
OLA
The difference, my FRiend, is that directly elected senators are beholden to the same people as members of the House - the Gibsmedats - and are forced to pander to the lowest levels of the electorate to win elections. Senators appointed by the state legislatures are less so and can represent the interests of their state without worrying about taking a position that might cost votes among the low information crowd.
The founders recognized that states have different interests than individuals and that unfiltered populism would ruin the nation. The electoral college and indirect election of senators was their way of buffering the mob rule that would be the result of popular elections. Direct election of senators was an early progressive move to tear down the constitutional system, as is the push for direct election of the President.
Until then, the United States was a uniting of states. Each state has its own interests as an aggregation of its residents, with Senators representing the nature of the state as a whole by filtering "the will of the people" thru state government which in turn took two seats in Congress. Senators were selected by high-ranking state leaders who presumably know more about what's actually going on than the malleable rabble at large.
The 17th destroyed that, eliminating the state governments from representation in federal government. Senators are now just winners of the House-like popularity contest, coming from state-wide jurisdictions instead of local precincts.
Prior to 17’th were the senators term limited?
A majority of the Senate is Democrat. A majority of legislative chambers are Republican. So you’d see some difference. Probably not as much as we’d like, given the RINOs, but some.