So there is a chamber were each state is equally represented irrespective of population. Do you really “question that purpose” Repeal the 17th? Add in other reasons you want 2 chambers instead of 1 (so legislation can’t just get rammed though). Are you being simple?
You Jacquerie continue to live in fantasy world if you think career politicians will choose better Senators, they won’t, period. The system was wrought with corruption and delays with seats sitting empty for months, that’s why they changed it.
I think the founders GOT IT RIGHT BIG TIME when they stuck in the provision that allowed you to amend the constitution. Thank goodness we passed a bill of rights, fixed the Presidential election process so it didn’t always end in a tie (1800) ect. Aside from prohibition and the income tax (and giving DC electors for President) I think we’ve done a pretty good job making positive changes.
I am forceful on this issue for good reason, I and millions of others live in rat county (don’t tell to move, save it). My vote for US House is meaningless. You want to disenfranchise me and take away my only vote for Congress that matters and give the power to a bunch of g*d-damn politicians. Politicians of both parties are pond scum, in every state, even Texas and Utah are filled with RINO slime. David Dewhurst would be the Senator for Texas now instead of Ted Cruz whom the people chose.
I will continue to oppose this ridiculous idea of giving my right to vote back to state legislators even though it apparently means saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over again.
I would advise you that it’s never gonna happen Jacquerie so you are wasting your time. I guess I am too but I can’t stand the proliferation of ignorance in pushing this dumb idea.
And you are missing a key constitutional point. The 17th emasculated a key power of the sovereign states.
The pre-17th Senators were usually as corrupt a bunch'o'hacks as we have today. The difference is that they were sent there by State Legislatures, who at least had some oversight of their hacks. So they were less likely to pontificate on matters that did not immediately concern their state. They were held much more accountable than they are today. Furthermore, a Senator did not have to be rich to be elected by the legislature. Of course, it wouldn't hurt.
Popularly elected Senators now seem to quickly become creatures of the Federal Government. Safe in six-year seats, they ignore their constituents at no particular peril. E.G., Feinstein and Boxer? Both have become worth HUNDREDS of millions of dollars in office.
Your rat assemblymen would not suffer senators who did not look out for their state’s interests. As you say, period.