“If you’re talking about this exact moment, yes, there would be more Republicans in the Senate at present than there are under the popular vote method.”
AL: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010, when Democrats had majorities in both state houses), instead of 2 Republicans
AK: 2 Republicans (probably both RINOs, since conservative Republicans didn’t win legislative majorities until 2012) (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
AZ: 2 Republicans(elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
AR: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
CA: 2 Democrats (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
CO: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), same as under the 17th Am.
DE: 2 Democrats (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
FL: 2 Republicans (probably one being RINO Charlie Crist, whi has since become a Democrat) (elected in 2010 and 2012), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
GA: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2010), same as under the 17th Am. (but 2 Democrats from 1913-2005)
HI: 2 Democrats (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
ID: 2 Republicans (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
IL: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
IN: 1 Democrat and 1 Republican (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
IA: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
KS: 2 Republicans (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
KY: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010, when Democrats had large House majorities and Republicans had small Senate majorities), instead of 2 Republicans
LA: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
ME: 1 Democrat and 1 Republican (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
MD: 2 Democrats (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
MA: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am. (and Kerry’s replacement would be guaranteed to be a D)
MI: 1 Democrat and 1 Republican (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 2 Democrats (Dems had large House majorities and Republicans large Senate majorities, so I think they’d elect one RINO and one Democrat)
MN: 1 Democrat and 1 Republican (elected in 2008 and 2012), instead of 2 Democrats
MS: 1 Democrat and 1 Republican (elected in 2008 and 2012), instead of 2 Republicans
MO: 2 Republicans (elected in 2010 and 2012), instead of 1 Democrat and 1 Republican
MT: 1 Democrat and 1 Republican (elected in 2008 and 2012), instead of 2 Democrats
NE: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
NV: 2 Democrats (elected in 2010 and 2012), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
NH: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
NJ: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
NM: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
NY: 2 Democrats (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
NC: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
ND: 2 Republicans (elected in 2010 and 2012), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
OH: 2 Republicans (elected in 2010 and 2012), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat (but at least one of the Republicans would be a RINO due to Dem House control in 2010)
OK: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2010), same as under the 17th Am.
OR: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), same as under the 17th Am.
PA: 2 Republicans (elected in 2010 and 2012), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat (but at least one of the Republicans would be a RINO due to Dem House control in 2010)
RI: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
SC: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2010), same as under the 17th Am.
SD: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
TN: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2012), (but at least one of the Republicans would be a RINO due to Dem/RINO House control in 2008), same as under the 17th Am.
TX: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
UT: 2 Republicans (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
VT: 2 Democrats (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
VA: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2012), (but at least one of the Republicans would be a RINO due to Dem Senate control in 2008), instead of 2 Democrats
WA: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
WV: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am. (and Rockefeller’s seat surely would stay D next year)
WI: 1 Democrat and 1 Republican (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
WY: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
So with state legislatures electing Senators we currently would have a Senate with 55 Democrats and 45 Republicans—exactly the same number as we have today with elected Senators! And those 45 Republicans would include far more RINOs if the state legislators made the picks, sometimes because small GOP legislative majorities or Democrat control of the other house makes a compromise unavoidable, but more often because several states have RINO-controlled legislators and, even when they don’t, career politicians are more likely to elect go-along-to-get-along types such as David Dewhurst of Texas.
So I would oppose any attempt to repeal the 17th Amendment.
Like I said it is not a static situation. Repealing the 17th would put a whole new spin on state politics, I feel decentralizing the power of the cities over suburban and rural voters. Individual legislatures would have much more attention and that would be a good thing. As it is now the states have such little power it is almost a joke, the exact opposite of the design of the original republic.
I need to correct you here. Election of said Senators would fall to the bodies elected AFTER said dates. Hence the Senators taking office in 2009/11/13 would be elected by the legislators in joint session by the members who won in 2008/10/12, not the prior elected body. This would alter your list...
As follows (with current in parenthesis):
AL: 1 Dem, 1 GOP (GOP won the leg in 2010) (2R)
AK: 2 GOP (but both likely RINOs, as stated) (1D, 1R)
AZ: 2 GOP (same)
AR: 2 Dem (1D, 1R)
CA: 2 Dem (same)
CO: 2 Dem (same)
CT: 2 Dem (same)
DE: 2 Dem (same)
FL: 2 GOP (1D, 1R)
GA: 2 GOP (same)
HI: 2 Dem (same)
ID: 2 GOP (same)
IL: 2 Dem (1D, 1R)
IN: 2 GOP (1D, 1R)
IA: 1 Dem, 1 GOP (same) (GOP had more seats in leg in 2011)
KS: 2 GOP (same)
KY: 2 Dem (2R)
LA: 2 GOP* (*GOP had more seats in leg in 2011, but the 2009 candidate would’ve had a divided body voting, with about an even chance it would’ve been GOP, given some Conservative Dems jumped ship then)
ME: 2 Dem (1 R, 1 I)
MD: 2 Dem (same)
MA: 2 Dem (same)
MI: 1 Dem, 1 GOP (2D)
MN: 2 Dem (same) (both Franken & Klobuchar would’ve been elected by the 2009 and 2013 members, not the GOP 2011-12 members)
MS: 1 Dem, 1 GOP (2R)
MO: 2 GOP (1D, 1R)
MT: 2 GOP (2D) (GOP held majority overall during both elections in 2008 & ‘12)
NE: 2 GOP (same)
NV: 2 Dem (1D, 1R)
NH: 1 Dem, 1 GOP (same) (GOP would’ve elected Ayotte in ‘11)
NJ: 2 Dem (same)
NM: 2 Dem (same)
NY: 2 Dem (same)
NC: 1 Dem, 1 GOP (same) (Burr would’ve been elected by leg in ‘11)
ND: 2 GOP (1D, 1R)
OH: 2 GOP (1D, 1R) (GOP held numerical majority even in 2009 by virtue of 9 seat majority in Senate to 7 Dem in House, so would’ve elected both)
OK: 2 GOP (same)
OR: 2 Dem (same — though Dems had 2 seat leg majority overall in 2011, so might’ve been a surprise)
PA: 2 GOP (1D, 1R) - (GOP holds majority in 2011 and 2013)
RI: 2 Dem (same)
SC: 2 GOP (same)
SD: 2 GOP (1D, 1R)
TN: 2 GOP (same) (GOP had majority in both bodies combined despite so-called “tie” in House in 2009)
TX: 2 GOP (same)
UT: 2 GOP (same)
VT: 2 Dem (1D, 1 Soc)
VA: 2 GOP (2D) (GOP had leg majority combined in 2009)
WA: 2 Dem (same)
WV: 2 Dem (same)
WI: 2 GOP (1D, 1R) (GOP had majority in both bodies for 2011 and ‘13)
WY: 2 GOP (same)
The numbers would then shift in the GOP’s favor to 52 Republicans, 48 Democrats. Still, you and I know those Republicans would be a ghastly collection of country clubbers, big gubmint establishment RINOs. Conservatives would be few and far between (no Ted Cruz), but would be chock full of ultraleftists on the Dem side without any accountability.
How about that, the same number.
But No Ted Cruz in TX, it would be Dewcrist, er Dewhurst who was endorsed by almost the entire legislature.
No Lee in Utah, it would still be Bobby Bennett. Utah is the most Republican state. Texas is the most Republican large state. They would have worse Senators under this method, think about that Central_Va.
I will say if we fail to take the Senate but keep enough legislatures that would win under that method that would be the only thing that could lead me to reconsider since electing a GOP majority is ultimately the thing I care about.
But my support still would not make repealing the 17th any more likely than me, Sarah Shahi and whipped cream being in the same room together.