[Impy]

The Senate provides equal suffrage to the states irrespective of population which is very important. Wouldn’t you say that’s a more important distinction from the House than the method of election? I sure would.

[BillyBoy]

Fieldmarshaldj makes a good point that state senators basically are elected the same way, but none of these anti-17thers are making any effort to abolish their state senates, or have state Senators appointed to represent individual counties in their state. And THAT reform (at least, the latter one) would actually make sense if they REALLY wanted to get back to state legislatures the way the "founders" envisioned them and "restore our Republic". When the constitution was ratified in 1788, the founders would have never dreamed the Illinois state legislature would be gerrymandered so half the Illinois Senators were controlled by Chicago, regardless of whether their district was suburban-based. It would be an epic disaster to have 21st century legislatures, as they exist now, appointing U.S. Senators under 18th century laws. Might as well try to "restore our Republic" by cramming the entire current U.S. population (illegal aliens included!) into the original 13 states.

Of course I don't favor a unicamerial legislature at the federal level. Even if the misguided anti-17th loons were correct that Senators and Congressman had the same purpose, having two houses of Congress makes it more difficult for them to pass legislation (especially right now when the two houses are controlled by different parties), and that's a good thing, IMO.

The anti-17th argument that "Congressman and Senators now serve the same function and are redundant since they're both elected from the same state" is also ridiculous when you look at the House delegations and Senate delegations from various states. They obviously represent VERY different constituencies. Congresswoman Shelia Jackson-Lee of Texas would NEVER be Senator Shelia Jackson-Lee of Texas, and Congressman Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland would NEVER be Senator Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland. The demographics and interests of their district's constituents is vastly different than the state as a whole.

Field's suggestion of abolishing the 26th amendment is a worthy idea. It would never pass, but given that most 18-20 year olds don't vote anyway, and most of the ones that do are too ill-formed and ignorant to vote (not to mention they tend to be overwhelmingly liberal and pro-Obama), it would probably benefit our country if we limited voting suffrage to people age 21 or over. I was a conservative, informed voter at age 18, but unfortunately I was in the extreme minority at that age.