Replies

Senators were presumed to be chosen for their abilities by a more stable and better informed body than the electorate, the state's legislature.

That is the weakness of the entire argument. More stable and better informed? Give me a break. State elected officials are just as entrenched in the "self-protecting bureaucracy" of state government.

Prior to the 17th Amendment, just under 17% (one-half of one-third) of the federal government was directly elected by the electorate. Now 33% is so elected. I don't think that is a bad thing.

If you have a problem with the way your Senator is acting what are you going to do? Before the 17th A. the people of a state could put pressure on their elected legilators and he could be fired. Replaced. On the spot.

Now you can hope that your other Senator and the Senators of all the other states will give a rat's heiny what you think and censure one of their own. Snowball's chance.

Or you wait until he's up for election and fight the national machine that he has endeared himself to, indebted himself to, done favors for and hope your up-and-coming grassroots homeboy can unseat him.

More stable and better informed? Give me a break.

What motivated the average voter? What does the average voter know about the state's finances, resources, industry etc, etc.? The people of a state can keep track of local issues better, in terms of what their elected officials are doing, and have a greater effect on their willingness to comply with their wishes. So you hire people with experience that applies to your state.

You seem to be arguing that self-government is just tooo harrrrd and it's better to let the feds run it. That's what the 17th Amendment lends itself to. Do the people of a state have more say-so over their state by directly electing two U.S. Senators or by electing state officials (whose jobs are beholden to voters in specific districts of that state) who then appoint two Senators who must answer to them or be yanked?

It's the same as the Electoral College debate. Does that disenfranchise the people? It keeps the liberal eastern cities from ruling over the rural western states with redistributionist policies.