[who_would_fardels_bear]

If the 17th Amendment hadn't been passed, then I'm sure the Dems would have worked harder to win more governorships and state legislatures to guarantee that more Dems went into the Senate.

Every state now has large metropolitan areas that vote predominantly Dem with ever-shrinking rural areas. Now even the suburbs are turning squishy.

We can't just assume a static model that if there were no 17th Amendment that all of the politicos and voters would have behaved the same.

[ScaniaBoy]

You are quite right, one can never assume that things would develop the same way but for one thing. Still, looking at the US map of legislative districts it is very red. If the Democrats wanted to make it bluer, they would not have allowed their party to be taken over by the far left.

So, a non-passed 17th Amendment could have worked both ways.

[qaz123]

There are only 11, Blue Across the Board states, if I’m not mistaken.

Over 20, RED Across the Board, although some of them, with regards to their Governor’s, aren’t so RED. Arkansas, Utah. But the legislatures in are pretty solid.

Then the rest. The Purple ones. And Kentucky and Louisiana are sending Republican’s, probably NC, too. I doubt any of them are throwing a bone to their Governors.

So, we’d be looking at a solid 60+ in the Senate. And, the RNC and state GOP apparatus wouldn’t have as much clout in the process, which would be nice.

Every state now has large metropolitan areas that vote predominantly Dem with ever-shrinking rural areas. Now even the suburbs are turning squishy....I imagine you’re referring to the Southern and Midwestern states shifting, as the Liberals that have destroyed everything up North, are now migrating elsewhere. And the southern and midwestern Governor’s cannot seem to say, NO.

[Olog-hai]

If the Democrats could have worked in that fashion, then they would have preferred it over passing something like the 17^th Amendment; thing is, the House would have been able to counter that. But their goal was to replace the republic with what a pundit recently termed a “radical democracy”, so the amendment was necessary to them in order to wrest state power in DC (the purpose of the Senate) completely out of the states’ hands in favor of centralizing it in the federal government.

In (the United States of) America, where a democratic constitution has already been established, the communists must make the common cause with the party that will turn this constitution against the bourgeoisie and use it in the interests of the proletariat …

— The Principles of Communism

[Jacquerie]

The 16th and 17th were the progressive’s first victories.

As for the 17th, it was sold as the means to make the senate more congruent with the House. It worked. Much to our detriment.

Before the 17th, the Senate’s farm team were the state legislators. Today, aspiring congressmen are often the state’s next senators and carry their habits and outlook with them.

[metmom]

There is simply no way to know what might have been if the 17th Amendment had not been passed.

The idea that the Senators would not be beholden to anyone is false, because they would still be beholden to those who appointed them and would be representing their special interests.

I see no way out of the mess of senators owing someone and working on that basis.

[Jacquerie]

As for the influence of rural v. metro areas, thank an early 1960s BS Scotus decision that imposed one-man-one-vote on the states.

Progressing the Constitution: One Man One Vote.

[boxlunch]

It is much easier to correct issues at the state level though, even if what you say is true. Just the cost of a US senate campaign is more than the cost of a presidential ( or equivalent position) campaign in many countries. The amount of money needed makes bribery almost inevitable.

[central_va]

Figures YOU would have a problem with the obvious disaster the 17th amendment has been. Wow. New low.