Replies

You forgot a couple of more points why repealing the 17th is not the panacea some think it to be.

1. When state legislatures were divided, US Senate seats went unfilled, sometimes for YEARS.

2. In corrupt machine politics states, a US Senator often owned the state legislature. It’s easier to bribe 200 people than to bribe 2 million people.

3. When the amendment was adopted, many states already elected US Senators by popular vote. The legislature was required by law to elect whomever the people chose.

I think to many Freepers think we would get a bunch of Henry Clays, John C. Calhouns and Daniel Websters. We would instead get a bunch of William A. Clarks, a corrupt turn of the century Montana Senator who was a poster boy for the 17th amendment.

"When state legislatures were divided, US Senate seats went unfilled, sometimes for YEARS."

Careful, that may be considered a positive benefit. ;-D Actually, that only happened on a number of occasions. Delaware went for about 2 years in one seat and 4 in the other at the turn of the last century when the state went from Democrat to Republican. The only other long periods were in the Southern states during the readmission interim in the late 1860s through to the 1870s (although the legislatures did choose members, they were often refused their seats once they got to DC).

"2. In corrupt machine politics states, a US Senator often owned the state legislature. It’s easier to bribe 200 people than to bribe 2 million people."

Exactly. Sometimes the puppetry ran both directions. In states like IL or MA today, you'd have both Senators that would be stooges for the House Speakers. Although Scott Brown in MA is not without flaws, his election would be impossible in a 90% Democrat legislature, and moonbats like Martha Coakley, once in, would be set for life.

"3. When the amendment was adopted, many states already elected US Senators by popular vote. The legislature was required by law to elect whomever the people chose."

Also true. People were getting fed up with self-serving bosses representing their own narrow interests and giving the proverbial middle-finger to the people. Although the Progressives of that era did a lot of dreadful things, this was one of the few things they got right. If the degradation of the quality of the Senators over time hadn't have occurred, it's unlikely the 17th would've been necessary. After all, even the Founding Fathers would readily admit that the Constitution isn't a mutual suicide pact. If something isn't working, that's what amendments are for.

"I think to many Freepers think we would get a bunch of Henry Clays, John C. Calhouns and Daniel Websters. We would instead get a bunch of William A. Clarks, a corrupt turn of the century Montana Senator who was a poster boy for the 17th amendment."

Precisely. We'd be fortunate to get a single Senator remotely within the realm of "statesman." The minefield any aspiring Senator would have to navigate in a legislature would immediately compromise them (not to mention they'd also likely be duty-bound to follow what the national parties wanted, as opposed to exclusively protecting their own states, beyond that is, making sure pork comes through en masse).