I don't know about "elitist", but I disagree with the presumption that having senators actually picked by state legislators (as the founders wrote) would reduce accountability.
Seems to me it would make senators 1000 times MORE accountable. Could you explain your reasoning?
I'm going to take this one point by point.
Your solution will take power from the people and give it to the elite. And the elite in this country are liberal.
First of all, this isn't my solution, it's the original intent of the Framers back in 1789. If you recall, Madison originally objected to a bicameral Congress (he wanted true democracy of the people), but ultimately came around to the idea that the separation of a people's chamber and a state's chamber was an ingenious invention.
As I see it, there are reasons why the states are the way they are. Those reasons are geographic; there are mountains and valleys and rivers and such that naturally segregate people into regions that develop into symbiotic cities and towns that have common interests within their geographic boundaries. In fact, the main objection was that the states became their own countries after Independence, and they were hesitant to give up their autonomy under a new federalism.
The separation of Congress into a people's chamber and the state's chamber allowed for both the fickle will of the people and the long-term interests of the state to share in the governing of the United States.
The liberal elite has done everything possible to take certain issues out of the hands of the people by using unelected judges. These judges are nominated by the president and approved by 51 senators, after which these unelected philosopher kings can overturn elections, outlaw abortion and do anything they wish. They are unaccountable to no one and have life time tenure. That is the problem.
The solution to that problem is elsewhere in the Constitution. The Constitution only defines the Supreme Court of the United States. The lower courts are left to the Congress to define, and eliminate, and limit scope, as they choose. That is one of the threads of the tapestry of checks and balances.
Electing senators by State legislators will simply make the senate more unaccountable, elitist and unaccountable.
Actually, that will reconnect the people, the several states, and the federal government. Today, people do not pay attention to politics because they think that they can't do anything to influence what happens in Washington. How would they feel if they learned that what happens in Washington is influenced by what happens in Sacramento, and Austin, and Albany, and Tallahassee? If people don't like what is happening at the federal level, they first have to change what happens at the local level and then those changes will ripple to the federal level.
That’s why we changed the constitution in 1913. The founding founders were wary of democracy since they did not want a majority that had no property oppressing the minority that had property. In those days land was property and vice versa. We past that years ago.
In an earlier post, the influence of modern technology on our government structure was cited as an agent of change. I submit that that was what was happening in 1913, but the 17th amendment was the misguided "solution" to the perceived problem.
Remember what was happening at the time. America had just settled the Wild West. The telegraph connected remote locations with "instantaneous communications" (the first internet?), and railroads made cross-country travel safer and quicker than Conestoga wagon trains. Range wars were being waged between cattle barons, rail barons, farmers, and settlers. Western territories were becoming states. Eastern industrialization was transforming the economy. There was a lot of corruption taking place, both in eastern politics and western territorial angling for statehood. By 1913, it all came to a head.
Today the millionaires and billionaires (look at Soros) are in favor of income distribution. If you wish to control the senate, reduce it term from 6 years to 4, write in term limits, and make the filibuster unconstitutional.
Look at Corzine and other millionaires that bought their Senate seats via the money to wage a media campaign. Look at the failed campaigns of Michael Huffington and Al Checchi, where millions were spent but they failed to win the seat. Where is all that money going? It's going to NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, FNC, and all the other media outlets that run the ads that are necessary to win a campaign today. Eliminate the campaigns and you eliminate the money in federal politics. Eliminate the money spigot and you eliminate a source of funding to the "elite" media that they count on every two years.
Any money that is spent will be spent at the local level for House seats which have smaller constituencies. Furthermore, with the Senate campaings removed, there is more "air in the room" for Representatives to get their message out and not lost in the rhetoric of national bloc party politics that dominate the Senate today.
No, I think that returing the selection of Senators to the states is the ultimate solution to what's wrong with our government today.
-PJ