I find it curious that the arguments of the anti-17thers are full of rank speculation with little substance. I’ve laid out the specifics for what it would mean in reality repeatedly, but have yet to find anyone who can substantively refute them. In this very thread, one of your compatriots couldn’t even make the argument beyond “I’m right, you’re wrong.” Is that a logical and substantive discussion ? Most of what you yourself are putting forth are red herrings.
That there would be this “sudden interest” amongst low or no information voters is also absurd and without a shred of proof beyond rank supposition and hope. You seem to think we’ll magically go back to the late 1700s/early 1800s in types of statesmanship. How is that going to happen ? It won’t.
Again, don’t take this for challenging you as a person. I know you want a better and more accountable government with people fully engaged. I want that, too. But repealing the 17th won’t do that at all. It will merely serve to disenfranchise voters like me, as it is one of the few offices I have any input in (being in Democrat legislative districts, whose members willfully ignore voters like me). I do not want legislative hacks (of either party) choosing my Senators.
Repealing the 17 amendment is key to restoring states rights if you can’t understand that than the republic means nothing to you. Count your self as part of the problem. Good day.