I didn’t say it would be easy. It will take lots of work to turn state governments around but it would be well worth the effort.
The states need a voice in the federal government like our founders intended. That way the states wouldn’t be railroaded into accepting federal mandates. The states would be there to keep a balance on things.
As I said, it’s not easy but freedom isn’t free, as is often stated. Too many people, Republicans included, have given up on paying attention to their state governments and have concentrated on the federal level. There is the problem.
My state, Missouri, was long a democratic stronghold. Now, we have a Republican house and senate in this state and have had for quite a few years now. It took a long time and lots of hard work but it was worth it. If the 17th had been repealed, my state wouldn’t have McCaskill as a senator. And we wouldn’t be known as a state that elected a dead guy to the Senate a few years back.
I don’t think this will ever happen. I see your point, but there was plenty of corruption in the old system from the (admittedly) little I know about it.
And if the 17th hadn’t been ratified, many Southern states would STILL have Democrat Senators. My state of TN wouldn’t have been able to elect a Republican for the first time until this past election... close to 140 years after the Reconstruction Republican Senator. AL, MS, AR, NC... they’d all still be Democrat (so Jesse Helms, Jeff Sessions, et al, would never have been elected). Yes, the upside is we’d have a solid block of Republicans from the Plains States (4 from the Dakotas, 2 from Nebraska), but many states where the GOP held on after they lost the legislatures would never have been able to have won (such as Al D’Amato in NY). What I found interesting, though, is that the numbers of members in the Senate wouldn’t be changed by all that much, just from different locales.
Without the 17th (with numbers reflecting that of the legislative majorities that would elect Senators at the election of the current Senators) and in (parenthesis), the actual current membership:
AL-2D (2R)
AK-2R (1D/1R)
AZ-2R (no change)
AR-2D (n/c)
CA-2D (n/c)
CO-2D (n/c)
CT-2D (1D/1ID)
DE-2D (n/c)
FL-2R (1D/1R)
GA-2R (n/c)
HI-2D (n/c)
ID-2R (n/c)
IL-2D (n/c)
IN-2R (1D/1R)
IA-1D/1R (n/c)
KS-2R (n/c)
KY-2D (2R)
LA-2D (1D/1R)
ME-2D (2R)
MD-2D (n/c)
MA-2D (n/c)
MI-2D (n/c)
MN-2D (1D/1 undecided)
MS-2D (2R)
MO-2R (1D/1R)
MT-1D/1R (2D)
NE-2R (1D/1R)
NV-2D (1D/1R)
NH-1D/1R (n/c)
NJ-2D (n/c)
NM-2D (n/c)
NY-2D (n/c)
NC-2D (1D/1R)
ND-2R (2D)
OH-2R (1D/1R)
OK-2R (n/c)
OR-1D/?* (2D)
PA-2R (1D/1R)
RI-2D (n/c)
SC-2R (n/c)
SD-2R (1D/1R)
TN-1D/1R (2R)
TX-2R (n/c)
UT-2R (n/c)
VT-2D (1D/1 Prog)
VA-2R (2D)
WA-2D (n/c)
WV-2D (n/c)
WI-2R (2D)
WY-2R (n/c)
*Oregon had an even number of total members of both parties in 2005 in the legislature, so the winner would be indeterminate.
So without the 17th, we’d only have 2 more members than we do now, not much of a gain (44R/55D/1 Unknown), and the issue would be that of ideology. I frankly think many of the Republicans would be more liberal and the Democrats from more Dem-leaning states would be just as liberal as they currently are, with perhaps only some of the Southern Dems slightly more moderate, but that’s not even a guarantee. Ultimately, I think had it not been ratified, it would be a net loss for Conservatives.