You're not eliminating their elections, you're merely transferring them. The flow of money will not stop. As for Blagojevich, he was selling a Senate seat for a vacancy. For Illinois, that's just business as usual. He was just stupid enough to get caught.
"By this I presume that you are saying that Senators would be raising funds to see that their puppets are voted into state assemblies and senates. I don't have a problem with this. That's local politics. If the Senator can raise money while in Washington, DC, to aid somebody in a rural county in Nebraska, go for it."
And you've just made my case here. You no longer have these rural local pols representing local interests, they're pawns of Washington. This is the counter-balance "states rights" your side speaks of ?
"Are we really going to start seeing $10 million campaigns for one or two assembly districts with a few hundred thousand voters, at most? Bear in mind that many state districts do not align with federal congressional districts, so there may not be natural synergies to leverage."
In key races where this much power and influence are at stake ? You bet it will happen.
"I'm not seeing it. Sorry. It would take too much attention from a Senator to mastermind that kind of local control over elections while still performing his duties as a Senator in Washington, in a way that is coordinated with the others Senators in his party. That kind of national Senatoral Election Campaign Committee would become too large to manage."
But yet it will happen. They'll just merely have divisional footsoldiers (ward bosses en masse) to monitor matters on behalf of the parties and Senators, dispatching money and resources (and muscle) where they're needed to keep the people in line. Seeing that you yourself bring this up makes this an even greater nightmare scenario that one can imagine. You've just upped the ante with DC influence that far down. What will be next ? Town councils ? If you think states are being trampled upon now, just wait until the repeal of the 17th.
I've read many of the 17th amendment articles on FR (but not them all), and have read some of the more interesting links (but not them all).
What stood out was that someone named Todd Zywicki is considered the leading historian on this issue.
Here are some of the links I read or glanced through that contain interesting research and points of view on the matter.
This article, Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment, by Bruce Bartlett, contains some good links to other research.
This article by Zywicki, Senators and Special Interests: A Public Choice Analysis of the Seventeenth Amendment, has some fascinating insights.
This later article, Ramifications of Repealing the 17th Amendment is also an interesting pro/con debate on the issue.
-PJ
Are you relating the appointment of Senators by state legislatures to the confirmation of Cabinet members by the Senate?
You keep referring to this as "elections," just pushed out to state legislatures. Is that really how it would work? Or is it more like getting a bill passed, where the chambers vote on it? What role would your money play in this process that you call an election?
If you're a federal Senator, you can't hand money to state assemblymen or senators. You can't advertise on television, radio, and print, just to influence people in the statehouse. What are you going to do, fund local elections 4 years in advance of your own, 2 years in advance of your own, on the hopes that your candidates will win and vote for you in the nominating bill?
And you've just made my case here. You no longer have these rural local pols representing local interests, they're pawns of Washington. This is the counter-balance "states rights" your side speaks of ?
I think this thinking minimizes the effect that local people have on their own elections. If all elections, everywhere, are going to be controlled by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and David Axelrod, that's an organizational feat that would be tremendous if they could pull it off. On the other hand, it might explain why Obama was AWOL on Benghazi, because he was too busy micromanaging all the rural county elections in the country.
But yet it will happen. They'll just merely have divisional footsoldiers (ward bosses en masse) to monitor matters on behalf of the parties and Senators, dispatching money and resources (and muscle) where they're needed to keep the people in line.
I think you think that people just get in the way of pre-ordained elections, and that we'd be better off without them getting in the way of the inevitable.
Would everyone (and I do mean everyone - local newspapers and TV, opponent candidates, other Congressmen) just sit by helpless while this steamroller of yours plows through the election?
You seem a bit fatalist that this is the only outcome that can happen.
-PJ