Replies

I read it but it didn’t seem to directly address my question.

Post #13 helped and makes sense as far as it goes and it sounds like it would help to repeal the 17th Amendment for the monetary and distraction reasons, but not necessarily because state representation suffers critically.

So far the 17th amendment issue doesn’t sound like a top critical issue at this stage of the game the way the 16th Amendment or the hijacking of the 14th Amendment (”Incorporation Doctrine”) does.

but not necessarily because state representation suffers critically.

Then take it further.

Suppose a state wants to coordinate a multi-year state legislative action with a federal one. Or suppose a state wants to align action with other states (e.g., compacts that require Congressional approval). The state would need the Senator to act as an "ambassador" to the federal government, to broker deals with the ambassadors from the other states.

A legislature-appointed Senator would be an extension of the statehouse in Washington, there to bring the needs and desires of the state to the rest of the union of states. This relationship would be much harder to foster, perhaps be impossible, if the Senator were to run a campaign appeal to the people that was disconnected from the interests of the state legislatures.

In fact, today we have Senators who switch parties depending on what "slots" are open to run from, who receive funding from out-of-state groups or other Senators. That kind of Senator has no intention of being an ambassador of the state, but rather, is out for themselves or other non-state interests that they feel more aligned with. At worst, they see the role as merely a stepping-stone to other, grander things.

I think a future essay that explores the concept of Senator as ambassador may be a good one. Just as we have an ambassador to the United Nations to represent our country's interests to the rest of the world, the Senate was to be the forum where the states sent their ambassadors to represent their interests to the United States.

The states cannot do that if the Senate is selected by a method that is in conflict with a state's interests.

-PJ

"I read it but it didn’t seem to directly address my question. Post #13 helped and makes sense as far as it goes and it sounds like it would help to repeal the 17th Amendment for the monetary and distraction reasons, but not necessarily because state representation suffers critically. So far the 17th amendment issue doesn’t sound like a top critical issue at this stage of the game the way the 16th Amendment or the hijacking of the 14th Amendment (”Incorporation Doctrine”) does."

_________________________________________________________________

I think the easiest way to answer your question as to why the state representation suffers would be to look at the way we elect the president through the electoral college instead of by popular vote and the reason we do so. Having the 17th amendment in place for the states is like getting rid of the electoral college for the presidential elections. If not for the electoral college a very few states with large populations would control the election of the president. The dense populations in large cites in California, New York Etc. would literally determine who is president. You can see what a disaster that would be.

With the framers original design, at the state level the state legislature acts like the electoral college. It prevents the large cities from choosing the senator. As we all know the large cities are controlled by very few usually heavily left wing politicians. So with the 17th in place only the large cites of a state are truly represented in the senatorial elections. The smaller districts of the state are stuck with whoever the big cites choose. Furthermore once a Senator is elected they have but just a few palms to grease in their state to virtually guarantee perpetual reelection. This is the reason we have 40+ year entrenched senators.