Replies

>> The Constitution was changed because the country (and the states and their governments) had changed. <<

Correct. The state governments and their legislatures in 1912 bore no resemblence to the vision "the founders" had for them in 1789, and were mostly fat cat corrupt politicians instead of "wise statesmen".

>> Changing the Constitution back wouldn't transform the country (or the states or their legislatures) into something it hasn't been for generations. <<

Changing the U.S. Constitution to repeal the 17th amendment would revert the U.S. Senate back to what it was before the adaptation of the amendment -- a body of unaccountable socialist RATs and RINOs who got their cushy jobs by dolling out big $$$ and corrupt favors to their party bosses in smoke filled rooms. Ironically, these state legislature appointed hacks that you love so much were responsible for the 16th and 17th amendments that you detest so much.

When the idea of democracy takes hold, institutions that aren't based on popular vote can lose legitimacy. At about the same time as the 17th Amendment went through here, Britain's House of Lords lost its power to veto legislation.

Some institutions, like the courts and bureaucracy have managed to resist democratic pressures, survive and thrive as unelected centers of power, but given the mood of the day, indirect election of senators was probably a lost cause, so Senators traded indirect election for a continued veto on legislation. Some would find that a wise rear-guard action.

Once direct election went through senators, who'd rarely been anybody's first choice as Presidential candidates, quickly began to think of themselves as potential presidents. Only a handful of politicians have gone directly from the Senate to the White House (Harding, Kennedy, Obama), but dozens or scores have made the attempt (with something like a dozen becoming Vice President).

Both before and after the 17th Amendment there has been a tendency for fat cats to become Senators. The improvement is that now voters can throw them out if they don't perform. Nowadays senators can't just sit in armchairs and smoke cigars all day. They have to at least pretend to address popular concerns.

The downside is that now senators have become publicity hounds and nuisances, itching to "get things done" so that they can get reelected. Too many of them also assume that they're fit for higher office, and spend their time running for president. It's not an ideal situation, but in an imperfect world it's not the worst possible trade-off, I guess.