At least Michigan would’ve had a fighting chance to have elected Republican Senators (since you still have the State Senate and had the House until 2007), so one might be able to argue the 17th would’ve been more recently advantageous to that state, but for more than half the states (CA, NY, most of the Northeast, IL, et al) it wouldn’t be. When this argument came up awhile ago, I listed what the makeup of the U.S. Senate would look like now, and the numbers were scarcely different overall. The fact that you’d have some states not having elected GOP Senators to DC since the 19th century, even now, is what is particularly disturbing.
“When this argument came up awhile ago, I listed what the makeup of the U.S. Senate would look like now, and the numbers were scarcely different overall. “
If you still have that list, I’d be interested in taking a look. Thanks.
If legislators are appointing senators, I believe that it’s less likely that liberals representing the interests of other states would be tolerated. I still think that if a senator from MI, appointed by the MI legislature, was voting for the interests of CA, the citizens of MI would go ballistic and demand his removal.
There’s still a lot positive to be said about cheering for and standing up for the home team. It’s human nature.