I’m in favor of repealing the 17th as well (why bother with a bicameral legislature if you keep it, anyway?) But the vast majority of people would have their eyes glaze over if you tried to explain why. (In brief: Prior to the 17th amendment, state governments had influence on federal legislation via the senators they appointed. This tended to undermine the tyrannical centralization of power that we’ve seen in the federal government in our lifetime, keeping political power more decentralized, local/grassroots in nature, and ultimately more subservient to the citizenry.)
Because congressional seats represent regional interest and senate seats represent geographic interests. In many states, it's vastly different when you look at their house delegation compared to their senate delegation. Both in the kind of people they elect and how many they elect. Hence South Dakota's elected officials have a lot more weight in the Senate than in the House, whereas Texas' elected officials have a lot more weight in the House than in the Senate. Michigan's Senate delegation is all liberal Democrat because Democrats outnumber Republicans statewide, whereas Michigan's house delegation is majority conservative Republican because there are large pockets of GOP areas around the state. And so on.
>> But the vast majority of people would have their eyes glaze over if you tried to explain why. <<
I understand the "reasons" given for repealing the 17th, and it only makes sense if you're in ALSO favor of repealing the 11th amendment as well so you can "go back to the original system the founders established" for electing the executive branch of government. In such a scenario, John McCain would become Obama's veep.
Are you?
I concur. Repeal the 17th, and gives the STATES a voice in the satanic Fed.gov!
The Senate is still elected on a state-by-state basis, rather than by districts apportioned by population. It also has features like the filibuster which make it possible to hold off legislation that might win a majority in the House. That's why we bother with a bicameral legislature.
The reason we had the 17th Amendment is that a legislative house that's not democratically elected would lose power. Voters would demand that a body they didn't vote for surrender its powers, and the Senate would be like Britain's House of Lords or Canada's or Australia's Senate -- something of a rubber stamp for whatever the lower house wanted. To keep features like representation by states, rather than by districts of more or less equal populations, and the filibuster, we allowed popular election of Senators.
However bad the result may have been, doing away with the 17th Amendment would eventually mean doing away with the Senate or at least doing away with any meaningful role it might have.
(In brief: Prior to the 17th amendment, state governments had influence on federal legislation via the senators they appointed. This tended to undermine the tyrannical centralization of power that we’ve seen in the federal government in our lifetime, keeping political power more decentralized, local/grassroots in nature, and ultimately more subservient to the citizenry.)
It was more the 16th -- Income Tax -- Amendment that did that. When the federal government had access to a source of revenue greater than had been imaginable earlier, its relationship to the citizenry and the states inevitably changed.