[Baynative]

This issue has confused me for some time even though I've been through lengthy explanations form both points of view. If a state such as California elects its Senators in a general election of populist votes, they would (and have) end up with the two senators they currently have. If their legislature which is dominated in both houses by a democrat super majority were to pick the senators the outcome would not be changed.

How might the idea of repeal, as unlikely as it is, alter the outcome of what we do now?

[cripplecreek]

How might the idea of repeal, as unlikely as it is, alter the outcome of what we do now?

There are already 24 states with the GOP in control of both houses of the state legislature and governorships. That's 48 GOP senators right off the top. The democrats have 12 or 3 states giving them 24 to 26 democrat senators. The remaining states would likely split their senators between the parties giving the GOP a large majority.

[RinaseaofDs]

The Senators, being appointed by the Governors, act as ambassadors for the state. They can’t be voted out, until there is a new governor, but they are sent to represent the interests of the governor’s office. Today, they are influenced SOLELY by special interests on both sides of the aisle.

The Senators, originally, in not having to campaign, could spend their time actually legislating. They could also afford to do unpopular but necessary things. More than that, they could be COMPETENT, rather than telegenic.

The 17th has been a killer, fiscally speaking.