Prior to the 17th, the usual method for elections was a joint session of the legislature. In TN, we actually still have this archaic practice to elect downballot offices. Only Governor is elected by the people. Lieutenant Governor is elected by the Senate. Treasurer, Comptroller and Secretary of State are elected in joint session (the same way the Senators used to be). Attorney General is the most byzantine, they are elected by the Supreme Court and the members are "appointed" by the Governor, but trial lawyers pick the applicants, which are never Conservative, so we never can get a Conservative Republican into those offices.
Having been raised in a state with such a process is why I find it, as I cited in previous posts, to be viscerally offensive removing one of only two offices I can actually have a say in their election.
"If you're a federal Senator, you can't hand money to state assemblymen or senators. You can't advertise on television, radio, and print, just to influence people in the statehouse."
So are you proposing to outlaw the ability to even campaign as such for an office ? I don't think that will pass 1st Amendment muster.
"What are you going to do, fund local elections 4 years in advance of your own, 2 years in advance of your own, on the hopes that your candidates will win and vote for you in the nominating bill?"
You wouldn't necessarily have to go that far back. If you're seeking a Senate seat, you would be elected by the body convening who won in that November election. Such members could've been swept in exclusively pledged to vote for that candidate. I can imagine in Texas, where Lt Gov. Dewhurst used many and all sorts of influence to try to get himself elected to the Senate seat over Ted Cruz, he would've been bankrolling and threatening just enough people to push him in...
...and something else worth mentioning. I'll tell you why you'll never get Conservatives elected to the Senate again under such a scenario. In states even with a GOP majority, as soon as a Conservative were to stand for the office, the establishment RINO would then get the entire Democrat caucus to vote for them and pick off enough Republican members to vote them in, pledging "moderation." Such a thing happened in my state as recently as 2009. We obtained a majority in the State House. The Dems targeted a disgruntled RINO weirdo and told all their members to vote for him and got him seated as Speaker. Took us 2 years to get him kicked out.
"I think this thinking minimizes the effect that local people have on their own elections. If all elections, everywhere, are going to be controlled by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and David Axelrod, that's an organizational feat that would be tremendous if they could pull it off. On the other hand, it might explain why Obama was AWOL on Benghazi, because he was too busy micromanaging all the rural county elections in the country."
This nationalizing effect is happening. Used to be a time you had party members who had some wide latitude in how they voted, especially amongst Democrats who didn't go with the radical national party. This is almost gone now. You have people voting almost in lock-step, especially on their side. The pressure would increase beyond belief from DC. And believe me, they give more of a damn about that power than some dead diplomatic corps members. Way too much power and money at stake.
"I think you think that people just get in the way of pre-ordained elections, and that we'd be better off without them getting in the way of the inevitable."
I think that people would largely cease to matter and that indeed many of these elections would be preordained. You immediately make a large number of states Democrat for perpetuity, and they no longer have to worry about pandering to non-far-left interests. They can be fully unleashed to do their worst, while our milquetoast RINOs get dragged along so as not to be called "extremists" for daring to oppose the Stalinist agenda.
"Would everyone (and I do mean everyone - local newspapers and TV, opponent candidates, other Congressmen) just sit by helpless while this steamroller of yours plows through the election?"
Not my steamroller. The left-wing establishment's steamroller.
"You seem a bit fatalist that this is the only outcome that can happen."
No, my scenario may be rosy. It could be worse. Sadly, we made need a literal revolution in this country and a reset button. Maybe then we can repeal the 17th and start this whole shebang all over again. C'est la vie.
Right there, I think we would all be better served if you stopped referring to this as an "election," but as the "chosen" that the Constitution referred to. In place of "chosen," I would accept "appointed" or "confirmed," but not "elected." I admit that Article I Section 3 Clause 2 unfortunately goes on to refer to the "first Election," but afterwards goes back to using the word "chosen." So should we.
So are you proposing to outlaw the ability to even campaign as such for an office ? I don't think that will pass 1st Amendment muster.
You make a big leap with this statement.
I already said "go for it," so no, I'm not prohibiting campaigning. You know that, if you read my posts. I questioned how overtly they were going to use the millions (or billions, as you added), to aid these elections. There are FEC constraints, aren't there? Filing and reporting requirements, yes? Senators can't just start flooding other elections with money without oversight, right? If that oversight connects dots between quid and quo, they will have to answer to that, right?
You wouldn't necessarily have to go that far back. If you're seeking a Senate seat, you would be elected by the body convening who won in that November election. Such members could've been swept in exclusively pledged to vote for that candidate.
I would endorse a local candidate running on a platform of voting for a particular person as federal Senator. That's how we connect local politics with federal politics. The Constitution is a tapestry, with the threads of We the People, the Several States, and the federal government all playing off of one another.
But the cycles don't always harmonize. Senators were appointed for six years, but state legislative offices are of shorter terms. The parts don't always move in unison, and never do when viewed nationally.
If a single candidate were "swept in exclusively pledged to vote for that candidate," that's not a secure place to be as a mandate for influencing day-to-day laws in a state. If a slate of candidates were "swept in," then they would have to organize or assimilate once they got there. Organizing helps the Senator, assimilating does not.
-PJ