Replies

17th is a symptom, not the disease, so would agree with not being the "source of all evil in the U.S." The whole early 20th Century "Progressive" stuff as a whole would be the beginnings of the disease.

After the Progressive Amendments this was unstoppable, for example, the 16th Amendment combined with the bond peddlers of the Federal Reserve (Add Investment and Securities Banks into that mix) began the misuse of leverging/spending.

17th was designed for representing the States and a firewall in the face of populism. Again, it is easier and less expensive to bribe 2 campaigns than over 100 or so campaigns, plus where are the States represented. Do you believe in Federalism and Division of Powers?

This played into FDR taking advantage of the situation as the spending path was set without a firewall against the populists whims. In all my years, I have never seen ONE entitlement cut (Cutting rates of growth rates do not count) or ended despite populism. There are no checks and balances despite populism concerning the Senate. This system is more of a haven for lobbyists and corruption with the States left out. Again, where are the States represented that HAVE provided checks and balances. For every one case of grifting I can name a thousand more under populism. All you call for of older glorified representatives elected for 6 years (Why not 2 LOL) beholden to power and special interests.

Other than for repeal of the 17th, I’m not necessarily criticizing some of your goals and points about the massive size of the government/spending, et al. I’m just telling you that what you want won’t be accomplished by turning Senate elections back over to the state legislatures than what we have now. That’s the basic point here.

I believe we have a better chance keeping the Senators popularly elected (albeit with a recall petition, which would require a Constitutional Amendment) and leaning on them hard to achieve change than we do going back to the old way, which removes any direct accountability to the voters.