Excuse me? I didn't call you any name. I said I think the opinion that the 17th should be repealed is "insanity". That's what I think. I don't see the other side of many issues.
You asked me to name a conservative mindset Senator, I did. You did not ask that he be current.
You didn't name one at all cause Miller only fit that bill at tail end of his career. Anyway it's very unlikely that any future RAT Senator or Senatorial nominee will be an actual conservative. I don't know if what you mean by a "conservative mindset" is different from actually being a conservative.
compare him to today's Democratic senators and one could easily argue he is more conservative than the current lot.
He had the most conservative voting record for a Senate rat in some time. But that's not saying much. Which brings back to may original reason for engaging you in conversation. You should care whether Senators are democrats or not because democrats are scum and their party as an organization is only slightly less disgusting than NAMBLA.
Back to my original point, I don't fancy myself as smarter than our founding fathers, so I believe we should repeal the 17th to get back to the original intent of the constitution.
I've heard that argument many times. Which is odd since it's so easily refuted. They in their wisdom wrote a constitution that could be amended. Which it has been many times. The state legislatures themselves ratified the 17th amendment which was passed because of widespread corruption in the Senatorial selection process.
If you wanna repeal the 17th merely because it differs from the original constitution does that mean you wanna repeal every amendment for the same reason? Do you wanna repeal the 12th amendment and to go back to when the electoral college vote for President and VP were not separate? This caused problems in 1796 and 1800. Problems the founders didn't foresee (cause they were human beings not God). Lucky thing they were smart men who wrote a Constitution than can be amended.
Being against the 17th is one thing but I don't see why 1 of your reasons is that it changed the original constitution given that every amendment did the same thing.
I leave you with this, if you think the voting of senators by state legislators is anachronistic, how do you feel about the electoral college?
My feelings on the EC are mixed. Purely as a matter of principle I'd just as soon have a national popular vote though any huge regional disparities could produce problems. Any popular vote election held after reconstruction until the Mid 20th Century would have been illegitimate because the Southern rats wouldn't allow most Black voters (who were then GOP) to vote.
It very importantly prevents the specter of a nationwide recount (which would have happened in 2000). So long as the rat party commits massive nationwide voter fraud I think we need the EC. Basically that means forever since leftist election thieves aren't going anywhere.
I'd be really pissed off though if something happened like
Palin 50% 268
Obama 49% 270 Win
This almost happened in 2004 when Bush's narrow margin in Ohio was the only thing that kept Kerry out of the White House despite Bush getting like 3 million more votes overall. That was an exception, in previous close elections the EC has usually benefited Republicans. Like in 2000, although I believe between given voter fraud and vote suppression (by calling Florida for Gore) that Bush was likely the legitimate popular vote winner.
Of course I'd also be dismayed if it were abolished and this
Palin 49% 270
Obama 50% 268 Win
Occurs.
So to sum it up I'm for the EC for practical reasons.