What I'd like to see discussed is the impact that repealing the 17th has on campaign fundraising.
As I've posted many times over the years, it's my belief that modern party bloc politics is the result of the need for 1/3rd of the Senators to have to raise millions of dollars for 33 of the most expensive elections every two years. It takes something like a National Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to oversee the NATIONAL raising of funds to be distributed across all the Senate election within the party. Senators just have to adhere to the national party platform (and NOT individual states interests) to share in the combined fundraising.
You don't see this kind of coordinated party fundraising across 435 House races. Also, you don't see a lot of sharing between the Presidential campaign fundraising and the Congressional races. So it's the 33 Senate races every two years that drives the coordinated party bloc fundraising.
Therefore, if you eliminate the need for Senate elections, I believe you will also weaken the party's hold on individual Senators to the voting bloc, because the fundraising hook is no longer there with which to threaten the Senator, like they do today.
Repealing the 17th amendment is really campaign finance reform at its purest.
-PJ
An interesting theory, but I dismiss it out of hand. If you believe these Senators will stop raising money with the repeal of the 17th, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you. These folks would still be raising millions (if not billions, when you add in the whole lot) to influence their own elections and making sure THEIR people were returned to the legislature. Basically, the only thing that would change is you empower the politicians beyond where they’re already at. That’s the last thing we need to be doing at this point.