You said: The people in the individual states should choose their nominees and then the parties should get behind them.
I say: No, we need to repeal the 17th Amendment and have the State legislatures appoint/elect the Senators as it was intended by the Founding Fathers. Otherwise, what is the point of having the Senate.
The House of Representatives is to represent the people’s interest.
The Senate is to represent the interest of the individual States.
“You said: The people in the individual states should choose their nominees and then the parties should get behind them.
I say: No, we need to repeal the 17th Amendment and have the State legislatures appoint/elect the Senators as it was intended by the Founding Fathers. Otherwise, what is the point of having the Senate.
The House of Representatives is to represent the people’s interest.
The Senate is to represent the interest of the individual States.”
Well my statement was in the context of how we currently choose senators. I agree with you that the 17th amendment should be repealed. But even if it was, you would still run into the same problem, just in a different electoral context. US Senators and the party committees could still pick a nominee ahead of time and gin up support for that person, put pressure on opponents, etc. My point was that the parties or senators or the senate should not get involved until the people have narrowed the field to two.
I’m not naïve however. Politics has always been a game of influence and leverage. But the idea that Reid called up someone and said we want you to drop out because we’ve already chosen our guy is repugnant to me. It smacks of aristocracy.