I hear this all the time, but without the 17th, the senators would have even more layers between themselves and the people.
Politicians electing other politicians is just not a good idea in the corrupt political world we live in today.
Before the 17th Amendment passed in 1911 America was basically a free, limited government country,with very low rates of taxation, much lower and fewer taxes than we have today. and people didn't have the Internet then. Now that people are more informed because of the Internet can you imaging how much greater America and our civilization would be if we repealed 17th Amendment and stopped this horrible Amnesty bill.
Liberals and Bush want to turn the U.S.A into a socialist Venezuela or a 3rd world country:
From the Washington Times:Bill permits 193 million more aliens from the 3rd world
Before the 17th Amendment passed in 1911 America was basically a free, limited government country,with very low rates of taxation, much lower and fewer taxes than we have today. and people didn't have the Internet then. Now that people are more informed because of the Internet can you imaging how much greater America and our civilization would be if we repealed 17th Amendment and stopped this horrible Amnesty bill.
Liberals and Bush want to turn the U.S.A into a socialist Venezuela or a 3rd world country:
From the Washington Times:Bill permits 193 million more aliens from the 3rd world
Exactly what pull do folks have on the very rich, like Teddy "the swimmer" Kennedy, or Lautenberg? The Senate has become a rich man's game. It's almost impossible to combine enough small contributions to run for the senate. So, we have either very rich Senators, or union supported Senators.
The founders had it right. By building a layered approach to electing Senators, you reduce the problem of mobocracy and demagoguery in the election of Senators from a large state. The very size of the constituent body voting for one Senator renders the individual voter impotent. The fact that each state legislator needs to win an individual district, means that it's easier to unseat a Senator. You only need to get 51% of the votes in 51%of the districts to turn things over far enough to unseat a Senator. Thus, without the 17th amendment, Senators had to be much more careful about what they did. If they ticked off the wrong 26% of the electorate, they could be out of a job.
It's a lot harder to get 51% of a state aroused to dump a Senator, as the Senator merely has to pay off a few percent of the moderates to keep his seat in a challenge. It's also much easier to cheat in a state-wide election, as a few rotten districts can provide enough swing votes to ensure election.