How, in your opinion, does re-empowering politicians to elect Senators benefit the republic (especially those in states that have zero percent chance of ever electing a non-Marxist, i.e. every Democrat state) ?
I have yet to get a direct answer from the anti-17thers who think we’d magically get statesmen on par with the early republic, not only from Democrat states but from Republican states when all you’d be guaranteeing is an almost complete set of Big Porker Statists. You’d be lucky to get a Conservative at all from ANY state. Texas, under your ideal, would be sending David Dewhurst and Karl Rove. Tell me how those two would benefit the republic ?
I asked you a question first and you didn't answer.
I have yet to get an answer from you.
My legislature members serve for 4 years. If they do something I don't like, I have a chance to get rid of them every 4 years.
U.S. Senators serve for 6 years. If they do something I don't like, I have to wait 50% longer to do anything about it.
If my local legislature elects someone to the senate that I don't like, I can kick them to the curb.
I prefer to keep the control at the state level, like the federalists intended.
Changing the Constitution back wouldn't transform the country (or the states or their legislatures) into something it hasn't been for generations.
The idea is so straightforward and simple that it's attractive to many people, though.