I understand the reasoning, but wouldn’t state legislatures pick farther left candidates?
if the senate would pass a budget and if the largesse of that budget was passed on to the states according to population like it is supposed to be, then the legislators will pick fiscally responsible senators.
make the states responsible for the pay and retirement of legislators as well... and housing...
Exactly. Sasse is an idiot.
Depends on the legislature.
Only the Dem ones would.
Could California and New York go any further left than Schumer and Harris and Feinstein? Just to cite two examples....
However, long term, if state citizens know that their state senators are going to pick their U.S. senators, then over time the state legislatures will move toward the Dems.
Then we'll have one party rule down to the state level when the illegals are given amnesty and the wall is allowed to decay in place.
I don’t think so, except in already far left leaning states anyway. In many areas it would balance the current imbalance where the super liberal cities end up representing the entire state, disenfranchising the more conservative suburbs, exurbs, small towns and rural areas. I think it’s a great idea.
State governments appointing the Senators was not universal before the Seventeenth Amendment IIRC.
And I have a hard time imagining anyone further left than people such as Sanders, Schumer and the like.
Could be that what’s needed is an electoral college for Senate candidates, reflecting the broader makeup of the state rather than its biggest population centers. And their concern has to be stipulated as representing the state’s government in DC rather than lobbyists as they (mostly) do right now.
Put on sackcloth and ashes. He’s a Republican.
It's hard to say. They would pick more "Establishment" candidates, but in practice under the current system, the big donor groups tend to keep out mavericks and give us "Establishment" candidates.
The idea that state legislators would zealously guard state powers and prerogatives and give us senators who limit federal power doesn't fly. First, the federal government has the money and the states want it. Second, state legislators are more than willing to pass responsibility on to Washington DC. Third, our economy, politics and media are already national. State legislators are going to bow to the same influences as the public and their representatives already do.
“...wouldn’t state legislatures pick farther left candidates?...”
Some would and some would send Republicans. I don’t know how many legislatures are Democratic in both houses. But the founders wanted the Senate to represent the states while the House represented the people, by state. By taking back the 17th, think of all the money that would not be spent to elect senators now. All of the big donors, the special interests, would be out. Our founders knew what they were doing. Let’s return to the the original.
No. Not at all.
The 17th amendment is what I believe led the the left taking over our country. It got away from states rights.
It would take away the money corruption. A great idea.
No. Many blue state only elect Democrat senators because the urban areas with high populations can out vote the suburb and rural areas and counties that are largly conservative.
Maryland and New Jersey are prime examples.
Current Composition Republicans Democrats Other Legislators (7,383 total) 3820 / 52% 3,436/ 47% 137 (Independent, Other or Vacant) Chambers (98 total) 59 / 60% 39 / 40% Legislatures (49 total) 29 / 59% 19 / 38% 1 divided legislature State Control (49 total) 21 / 43% 15 / 31% 13 divided states
I trust the legislatures more than I do the “popular” vote.
In Arizona, Jeff Flake would be senator for life.