I respect your view and don’t feel ‘schlonged’ in any way by your opinion.
I’m trying to look ahead though. The problem was that our Founding Fathers failed to understand the downfall of the Roman Republic. The Roman Senator was an oligarch. Elected for life. And they thought that six years with perpetual reappointment potentiol would be sufficient oversight.
Senators still have no term limits and six year terms to boot. Makes them the equivalent of Roman oligarchs [aka Roman senators]. So what I suggest is quick term and term limited appointments.
State governments are changing rapidly. All politics is changing rapidly. And it would be easier for people to lambast their legislators over lousy appointments than it would be to figure out which politician to vote for and then faithfully support regardless. Voters are less emotionally invested in a legislative appointee.
I’ve also been contingency planning constitutional amendments based on the assumption that this will fail.
But, my fellow sick twisted freak, I do respect your patriotism. Both sides of this issue care deeply.
What the Founders wanted was simple and straightforward enough. However, as with many plans, they don’t often go off as they’re supposed to.
As it was, Senators would be chosen ostensibly by the governing majority of a given state legislature. They would then be directed on how to vote on particular bills while in DC. If the Senator failed to vote as instructed, or if during the duration of their 6-year term the governing majority of the state legislature changed, the “gentleman’s agreement” was that they would step down and allow the Governor to either name a replacement or go straight to having an election by the legislature. Again, simple enough.
However, it started to break down early on in the 19th century. Senators would start to exercise independence, they would defy the governing majority of a given state, and realized that because of election laws set out in the Constitution, they were not legally bound to step aside. Hence, when someone was elected to a full term, come hell or high water, they’d stay until the end.
At the end of Reconstruction, for example, even after a given state was “redeemed” (returned to Democrat power), Republican Senators would not step aside until their terms expired, often going as long as 4 years in hostile opposition. One example was Mississippi’s Blanche Kelso Bruce, the first Black man elected to serve a full 6-year term. After MS was “redeemed”, the legislature demanded this “Negro” resign so to put a White Democrat in his seat. Worse, yet, conditions so rapidly deteriorated in MS, Bruce could not even return to the state for the latter part of his term. He largely remained in DC and continued to serve until his term expired.
By the end of the 19th century, the Senate had become such a thoroughgoing joke that the seats were simply being bought. The public knew it and they were growing tired of it. You also had a situation such as what occurred in Delaware where the seats went years without being able to elect a member because of legislative deadlock. By the 20th century, some states began holding direct elections because the public was fed up with the process, and would abide by their choice until the 17th was officially passed.
I do find it hysterical (quaint at first, funny later, just laughably hysterical after and at present) that “statesmen” in the vein of Calhoun, Webster, Benton and Clay would magically spring forth with repeal. Quite a few states would cease to have any chance of a Republican ever winning there again. Heavily gerrymandered Democrat states would fix the races and would send the most partisan shakedown artists imaginable. The “states rights” they would look out for is one: $$. Send every last dime they can appropriate to the states. Support big gubmint ? No problem ! Dem states j’adore big gubmint. GOP establishment guys do, too.
The disconnect between what anti-17thers believe vs. the reality of what would happen with repeal is unbelievably vast to the point of fantasy.
I think there are other far more important ways to tackle the problem of the size and scope of government, and it starts with the who ought to be ALLOWED to cast votes. Voting should NOT be a right, but a privilege. A privilege for those with skin in the game. You take government welfare payouts ? No vote. You work for the government (except law enforcement/military) including as a gov’t contractor ? No vote. You’re voting on looting your own government.
There was a reason why the Founders did not want DC casting a vote, and that was why. The expectation was government employees would live in DC and would hence be voting on their own livelihoods, and that was a common sense conclusion. Most DC-area residents now living in MD and NoVA should not have the right to vote. They keep voting for candidates who keep ballooning the debt and expanding the bureaucracy. That MUST end.
Those people and only those in the private, non-governmental sector, should have a say in the government. Taxpayers. If that offends the remainder, tough. Quit your government job and get a job in the private sector and your enfranchisement is returned. Offended you don’t get to vote with food stamps and a welfare check ? Tough. Get off the dole, get a private sector job, and your vote is returned.
This is far more important than pie in the sky fantasies about a mid-19th century Senate that really never existed.