Because the Senate is a collegial body, where compromise and deal making is the only way forward, Senators can operate on the national level in a way which pleases a good number of people within their state, but which may not best help the state itself.
Because of the 17th, our Reps and our Senators are very similar. But in fact they ought to be serving different masters. I think the growth of the Federal Government was greatly asssisted by the removal of Senators are true advocates of their state legislature.
While it is true that many people for a long time wanted popular election of senators, this article points out that the Founding Fathers understood that many people might WANT that -- but that they should not HAVE that. It was supposed to be blocked, but the change got through anyway.
Yep. That's the way I see it too. Repealing the 17th is my pet constitutional argument. I think the 17th changed the fate of the nation- and for the worse.
I can understand people's arguments about the corruption inherent in the system and states not having senators for big stretches of time due to internal squabbles but the way I see it- that's that particular state's affair. If they can't get their sh1t together and send a senator to Capitol Hill, well they lose. I don't think the rest of the states should be denied doing it the way the founders set it out for them to be able to do because of this though.
Although I don't see the 17th ever getting repealed, I do like to bring this up to liberals and point out to them that the USA was never meant to be a democracy. It doesn't seem to sink in to their heads. But then, in all honesty, not too much does seem to sink into their heads...
The people of the nation elect the President.
That's the only part of your post I took issue with. The way I read the constitution, this is not true. The States elect the president via the electoral college. The way I read it, the general election is mainly for show (but one that cannot be denied to the people), a way to let the people say what they want. The States aren't necessarily bound to vote for a president based on the general election results.
Florida, for example in the 2000 election was simply doing it the way the constitution set out for the states to do by deciding to give the votes to Bush. They could equally have decided to give them to Gore- regardless of the actual tally of votes and chads and so forth.