I truly don’t think that repealing the 17th Amendment will accomplish much of anything, compared to multiple, and probably ordinary (as opposed to constitutional) changes.
For example, one of the most effective ways of getting your agenda heard in political functions such as parliaments and conventions, is to be a “marginal” organization with a focused agenda, between two major competitors.
In the US right now, there is only one such group that has the fixated attention and patronization of both republicans and democrats: “Hispanics”, or more properly Mexican Americans. Specifically American citizens of Mexican ancestry.
And while they are an ethnic bloc, they represent the “marginal” condition that any “marginal” political party or organization could achieve, except they have no great focus, no special agenda, as such. They may end up voting in either direction.
If these people ever found a leader with limited and concise demands, both republicans and democrats would jump through the hoop to appease him and them. That is because by being in the middle, they would carry far more weight than other groups who have already chosen sides.
Now in the case of reducing the size of the federal government, the path to success would be to create an organization, if not a political party, with enough clout to turn an election towards either party. And it would have to be clear, and be able to deliver the votes, to *whoever* gave them what they wanted.
Under no circumstances could they adopt other positions favored by one side or the other, which would take tremendous discipline. Their sole effort, individually and collectively, would have to be to reducing the size and scope of the federal government.
Importantly, this would *not* have to take place at the federal level, at first. For that, the NRA is a good example. They intervene in tight political contests at the State level, and will support whichever candidate that supports gun right more. This skillful technique has busted up rigid blocs in both the democrats and republicans, by creating both “pro-gun” democrats and driving from power “anti-gun” republicans.
So say this new organization has the single platform of reducing the size of the federal government. It should go to the State where it is the strongest, and as an organization wheel and deal with both democrats and republicans at the State level. Make them both the same offer: support slashing the size of the federal government, and we will get you elected.
But, you might ask, these are State offices. What good are they in influencing the national parties and federal government? The answer to that is “building bi-partisan momentum”.
On almost every election day in the US, there are races that are tight all over the country. The more politicians you can get “across the finish line” in more places will be elected officials who will owe you a big favor. They will see your organization as “the” one that got them elected.
And republicans and democrats will then start vying for your support. And such power does trickle up.
With such a tactic, pretty soon the national parties would start looking at how they could “bring you into the fold”, as a permanent supporter of their party. But this has to be refused, though it is a terribly attractive idea. They will offer real power if you align with them, but if you do, then you will win a small battle and lose the war.
And I don’t believe yours would accomplish much of anything, but it you go ahead and start such an organization, I certainly will support it.