[fieldmarshaldj]

No, it wouldn’t.

[Kegger]

Yes it would.

[PA Engineer]

No, it wouldn’t.

Please tell us why?

[Vermont Lt]

Actually I read an argument about this the other day. It was based on the premise that the Senate would have more responsibility to the State than to their own popular reelection.

They would have to think about how their actions affected the state. They would not have to be beholden to the special interests in Washington...but rather the special interests of their own homes and the impact of their actions on the states.

Kind of made sense.

[Political Junkie Too]

Have you read any of the articles by Todd Zywicki linked in this thread? He lays out the hypothesis that the 17th amendment was brought about by neither a budding progressive movement nor dissatisfaction with states that failed to appoint Senators.

Zywicki shows that pure market forces of brokering legislation to lobbyists led to a system that ensured the longevity of Senators on the premise that promises to trade votes for legislation were more valuable if the Senator could guarantee seniority, otherwise their promises had little value.

The 17th amendment was a plan by the incumbancy to sustain the seniority of Senators so that their promises to trade votes for legislation had a market value due to the fact that they could be trusted to remain in the Senate for a long enough time to make good on their promises.

-PJ