Because congressional seats represent regional interest and senate seats represent geographic interests. In many states, it's vastly different when you look at their house delegation compared to their senate delegation. Both in the kind of people they elect and how many they elect. Hence South Dakota's elected officials have a lot more weight in the Senate than in the House, whereas Texas' elected officials have a lot more weight in the House than in the Senate. Michigan's Senate delegation is all liberal Democrat because Democrats outnumber Republicans statewide, whereas Michigan's house delegation is majority conservative Republican because there are large pockets of GOP areas around the state. And so on.
>> But the vast majority of people would have their eyes glaze over if you tried to explain why. <<
I understand the "reasons" given for repealing the 17th, and it only makes sense if you're in ALSO favor of repealing the 11th amendment as well so you can "go back to the original system the founders established" for electing the executive branch of government. In such a scenario, John McCain would become Obama's veep.
Are you?
You correctly point out that there are differences now between house and senate delegations (mostly due to gerrymandering), but miss the larger point that state governments have been transformed into powerless administrative provinces of the federal government, short of secession.
The 17th fails on its own merits - it's a century-old experiment, and its time to recognize it as a failure and end it before more damage is done.
>>”Because congressional seats represent regional interest and senate seats represent geographic interests.”
regional interest = geographic interests
Unless of course your referring to Geography as rocks, if that be the case the senate does an exceedingly poor job of equally representing the different rock types in the Untied States.
>> “I understand the “reasons” given for repealing the 17th, and it only makes sense if you’re in ALSO favor of repealing the 11th amendment as well so you can “go back to the original system the founders established” for electing the executive branch of government. In such a scenario, John McCain would become Obama’s veep. “
I think your confusing amendments. The 11th amendment says:
“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The 11th Amendment has nothing to do with the executive branch.
Of course the Federal courts have sense applied the 14th amendment to in part “repeal” the 11th amendment, along with a lot of other protections from the Federal Government.
But I think it’s funny that you would mention the 11th amendment as its probably the one amendment after the “Bill of Rights” that is the most unlike the 17th amendment.
PS: You really should read the story behind its passage as its something we can learn form and repeat today given the right circumstances.
Basically its a testament to State resistants to Federal injustice system intrusion.