[DoodleDawg]

I understand all the arguments against the 17th Amendment. But by the same token, it is the only thing that allows the people to make radical changes to the Senate’s makeup by electing outsiders. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if the 17th Amendment was not in place then the only way men like Ted Cruz or Mike Lee would see the inside of the Senate chamber is on a tour.

[DNME]

I understand all the arguments against the 17th Amendment. But by the same token, it is the only thing that allows the people to make radical changes to the Senate’s makeup by electing outsiders.

*******************

Dawg, the Senate is supposed to represent the STATES, not the PEOPLE. The House is popularly elected to serve as the voice of the people, so our voice is (theoretically) heard already.

Another benefit to repealing the 17th would be a severe reduction in the amount of money, especially and most egregiously "out-of-state" money, spent to influence the election and corrupt the candidates. Anybody doubt that most Senators (Dirty Harry Reid comes screamingly to mind here) are bought and well paid for?

I want my Senators to vote strictly for the best interests of my state. Dump the 17th.

[Jacquerie]

Please take a closer look at my post.

[Loud Mime]

If we didn’t have a 17th Amendment we wouldn’t need Ted Cruz

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

And therein lies the problem. To avoid a Senate full of progressive establishment hacks of both parties, should the 17th be repealed, the parties need to be cleaned out. You need to get the establishment scum out of the GOP and the communists out of the Dems.